Stop Time – immigrationcourtside.com

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👩🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️ CALLING NDPA PRACTICAL SCHOLARS/EXPERTS: NOW’S YOUR CHANCE TO BECOME A BIA APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGE AND HELP CHANGE THE TRAJECTORY OF AMERICAN LAW! — The “Supreme Court of Immigration” Needs Supremely Qualified, Expert Judicial Talent!

I want you — Don’t just complain about the awful mess @ the BIA! Get on the appellate bench and do something about it!
Public Domain

Summary

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) at the Department of Justice (DOJ) is seeking a highly-qualified individual to join our team of expert professionals who serve as Appellate Immigration Judges.

This is an Excepted Service position, subject to a probationary period. The initial appointment is for a period not to exceed 24 months. Conversion to a permanent position is contingent upon appointment by the Attorney General.

Learn more about this agency

https://www.usajobs.gov/job/733279200

********************************

Although there was no formal announcement from EOIR, it appears that Appellate Immigration Judge William Cassidy has finally retired from the BIA. As many of you know, Judge Cassidy, appointed by AG Billy Barr, was notoriously hostile to asylum seekers and to a fair application of the generous well-founded-fear standard for asylum enunciated by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca and by the BIA in Matter of Mogharrabi. His “final” TRAC Immigration asylum denial rate as an Immigration Judge in Atlanta was an appalling and bone-chilling 99.1%! https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/judge2022/00004ATD/index.html.

This is a chance for a “real judge” with impeccable academic knowledge, practical solutions, and actual experience representing asylum applicants in the EOIR quagmire to bring some long-overdue and absolutely essential positive, progressive, change to the BIA – a group overall known for its too-often stilted, sloppy, improperly pro-Government, “go along to get along,” “don’t rock the boat by standing up for due process and human rights” decision-making.

The BIA’s lousy performance on the “stop time rule,” where they were twice rebuked by the Supremes for ignoring the language of the statute and the Court’s own holdings, is a classic example of why we need fundamental change at the top of EOIR. This substandard performance generated more unnecessary backlog and “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” in a system that can ill afford it (2 million case backlog). It also created unnecessary confusion and uncertainty in a situation where clarity was both required and achievable. I daresay, it’s hard to imagine any NDPA “practical scholar” getting sidetracked the way the BIA did in its misguided rush to please DHS Enforcement and its political “handlers” at DOJ!

Also, because of “jurisdiction stripping” legislation over the years, limiting the review of the Article IIIs in many areas, the BIA often represents the last realistic chance for individuals to obtain justice and fair treatment! That the BIA too often acts like an “assembly line,” doesn’t diminish its potential to become part of the solution rather than a source of further problems and unfairness.

Don’t let this important Federal Judgeship, with real life or death power over the lives of individuals and the future of our democracy, go by default to another “insider” or asylum denier.

I hear complaints from practitioners nationwide about the BIA’s poor scholarship and failure to issue realistic, positive guidance. But, it’s not going to change unless the “best and the brightest” from the NDPA apply for these critical jobs at EOIR and become agents of change.

Don’t let this chance go by to make a difference in the lives of others and to use your hard-earned expertise and practical skills to fundamentally change our failing U.S. judicial system — starting at the critical “retail level.”

The deadline is July 5, 2023, conveniently during the July 4 holiday. But, don’t let mindless bureaucratic tactics and feeble efforts at recruitment deter you. Force the USG to recognize and employ “judicial excellence” – once the “vision” of EOIR (before “good enough for government work” became the motto). I urge well-qualified minority candidates to apply for this key position!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-23-23

💨 FROM THE ROCKIES & THE HIGH PLAINS, THE WINDS OF TRUTH BLOW AWAY THE BS & SHOW HOW GARLAND’S BIA & THEIR SCOFFLAW INTERPRETATIONS HAVE BUILT BACKLOGS — “This petition for review represents the latest chapter in the Government’s ongoing efforts to dig itself out of a hole it placed itself in,” says 10th Cir. in Estrada-Corona v. Garland!

Kangaroos — It’s easy guys, we just do what DHS Enforcement and our political bosses want and we can keep hopping around forever! Backlogs! Ha, the bigger the bigger they get, the more “secure” our jobs!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA10 Stop-Time Victory: Estrada-Cardona v. Garland

Estrada-Cardona v. Garland

“The Attorney General may allow otherwise-removable aliens to remain in the country if, among other things, they have accrued 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States. We call this form of discretionary relief “cancellation of removal.” Under the statutory “stop-time rule,” the period of continuous physical presence ends (A) when the alien is served with a notice to appear, or (B) when the alien has committed certain criminal offenses. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). Nothing more, nothing less. In the latest installment of “What Triggers the Stop-Time Rule?” the Government asks us to hold that the issuance of a final order of removal is a third, extra-statutory event sufficient to stop the clock. The plain language of the statute supports no such conclusion. Declining to read ambiguity into a statute where none exists, we hold a final order of removal does not stop the accrual of continuous physical presence. … This petition for review represents the latest chapter in the Government’s ongoing efforts to dig itself out of a hole it placed itself in. … After years of statutory short-circuiting, the Government finds itself in the uncomfortable position of being wrong. … Because Congress unambiguously replaced the final-order rule with the stop-time rule, the BIA’s application of the final-order rule was legal error. Petitioner continued to accrue continuous physical presence after the immigration judge issued the order to voluntarily depart. … [W]e hold that because the BIA seems to have considered change-in-the-law equitable tolling arguments before, the BIA abused its discretion in this case by failing to “announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” … We cannot discern why the BIA found no extraordinary circumstance which would warrant equitable tolling, so the BIA abused its discretion. … On remand, the Government is free to argue that Petitioner should not be granted sua sponte reopening or equitable tolling. This opinion is expressly limited to two conclusions. First, the BIA’s application of the final-order rule was legal error. Second, the BIA’s explanations for denying sua sponte reopening and equitable tolling constituted, as a procedural matter, an abuse of discretion. For the reasons stated herein, we GRANT the petition for review and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

[Hats way off to Jennifer M. Smith and Mark Barr!]

********************

“For years, if not decades, the Government sent aliens “notices to appear” which failed to include all the information required by § 1229(a)—like the “time and place at which the proceedings will be held.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). For countless aliens, the only obstacle to being eligible for cancellation of removal was the Government’s position that a time-and-place-to-be-set notice to appear still triggers the stop-time rule. In Pereira, the Supreme Court rejected the Government’s atextual interpretation and held a “putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the [alien]’s removal proceedings is not a ‘notice to appear under section 1229(a),’ and so does not trigger the stop-time rule.” 138 S. Ct. at 2113–14. In one fell swoop, the Supreme Court cleared the way for many aliens, like Petitioner, to seek cancellation of removal.

But the Government quickly erected a new hurdle.”

The BIA could and should have prevented this debacle by insisting from the git go that the statute (“the law”) be followed by DHS and EOIR. Instead, at the behest of DHS, and perhaps to prevent tens of thousands of long-term residents who had received statutorily defective notices from seeking relief, the BIA misinterpreted the statute time after time.

The real stupidity here is that the requirement the BIA was pretzeling itself to avoid was hardly “rocket science” or burdensome: Serve a notice containing the actual date, time, and place of the hearing! One might ask what purpose is served by a so-called “Notice to Appear” that doesn’t notify the individual of where and when to appear?

Moreover, when the BIA started issuing their incorrect precedents, DHS and EOIR had a then-existing system — called “interactive scheduling” — that would have complied with the statute. The problem was that the “powers that be” at DOJ, EOIR, and DHS consciously decided NOT to use that system.

The apparent reason was the belief that complying with the law might have interfered with DHS arbitrarily filling the Immigration Courts with large “numbers” of cases to meet various enforcement “priorities” set from “on high.” Rather than doing its job, the BIA chose time and again to “go along to get along” with this nonsense!

Over and over, EOIR lets bogus DHS or Administration “enforcement priorities” or “improperly using the legal system as a deterrent” subvert due process, fundamental fairness, best interpretations, and practical solutions!

And, although Biden and Harris campaigned on a platform of bringing the rule of law and rationality back to immigration, the absurdity and illegality continues under Garland. He even sent OIL in to waste the time of the Article IIIs by mounting essentially frivolous defenses to the BIA’s malfeasance.

Perhaps worst of all, in addition to being denied timely justice, individuals and their lawyers dealing with Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR often are falsely blamed for causing the backlogs that are the primary result of DHS/EOIR incompetence and political meddling by unqualified bureaucrats. The latter don’t understand what really happens in Immigration Court and how to properly, fairly, and efficiently administer such a large and important court system.

The backlogs will continue to grow and the US justice system will crater because of bad immigration decisions generating skyrocketing litigation. Garland must replace the BIA with real expert appellate judges committed to fair, humane, and reasonable interpretations of immigration and human rights laws — without regard to whether those correct interpretations will be “career enhancing” or “career preserving.” In other words, judges who put justice before personal or institutional “survival.” Competent, expert, independent-minded judicial administrators with the guts to keep DOJ and DHS bureaucratic meddlers “at arm’s length” are also required.

Folks who could do the job are out here. But, that’s the problem! They belong in the key judicial judicial and administrative positions at EOIR where they can put any end to the due-process denying, backlog building dysfunction.

EOIR Clown Show Must Go T-Shirt — “EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept

Everyone committed to the future of American justice should be asking themselves why Garland hasn’t recruited and hired the right “Team Due Process” for EOIR! American justice can’t afford more of Garland’s inept, “go along to get along,” “afraid to say no to DHS enforcement” BIA and the rest of the EOIR “Deadly Clown Show” largely left over from past, failed Administrations!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-20-21

⚖️🧑🏻‍⚖️🍅FOOD FIGHT ERUPTS IN 5TH CIRCUIT AS EN BANC MAJORITY DECIDES TO FOLLOW LAW EVEN WHERE IMMIGRANT WINS! — 3 Trump Appointees, 1 Bush II Appointee, Join All Dem Appointees To Thwart 8 GOP Scofflaws’ Efforts To Overturn Rodriguez v. Garland!😎

The issue is whether an in absentia removal order can be based on a statutorily defective notice. The panel followed the Supreme’s decision in Niz-Chavez and rejected the BIA’s conflicting decision in Matter of Laparra. In other words, the panel required the Government to follow the statute, a process known as “complying with the law.” This sent some of this most conservative circuit’s most far-right judges over the edge. Here’s the en banc decision:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-60008-CV1.pdf

********************

Credit Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis for the “food fight” characterization.
The scofflaw GOP dissenters cited “deference” to the Executive, something they have pointedly refused to apply to Biden Administration precedents and policies favoring migrants.
The majority says: “[The BIA] flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s Pereira decision, which Laparra ignored.”
Incredibly, Garland is on the “wrong side” of this controversy, defending the legally incorrect misinterpretation of his “Trump holdover” BIA!
The statutory requirement at issue: That a “Notice to Appear” before the Immigration Court inform the individual of the time and place of the hearing. How difficult does that sound? Not very, unless you are bumbling bureaucrat at DHS and EOIR who chose, even after the Supremes’ initial decision, to violate that decision and the statute in almost 100% of the cases instituted before the Immigration Courts!
Kudos to the 3 Trump appointees and one Bush II appointee who joined 3 Obama appointees and 2 Clinton appointees to uphold the rule of law and thwart their GOP scofflaw colleagues.
Interestingly, and perhaps mildly encouraging, the “Trump appointees” split 3-3 on this one.
Apparently nothing drives a wedge between conservative judges like the scary prospect of following the law when it gives immigrants a win!
Future ambitious academic study: How much of the current out of control backlog can be traced to the Government’s, and particularly the BIA’s, inept handling of straightforward notice requirements set forth in the statute?
There’s a reason why I keep referring to Garland’s out of control EOIR backlogs as “largely self-created,” albeit in fairness not exclusively by him. The Trump Administration, and to a lesser extent the Obama Administration, also “excelled” at “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” driven by “prioritizing” improper political goals over due process, fundamental fairness, quality, and practical scholarship in the Immigration Courts.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-21-22

🛡⚔️⚖️ADVENTURES OF THE ROUND TABLE: Latest Amicus Brief To Supremes Weighs In On “Stop Time Rule” — Niz-Chávez v. Barr — Many Thanks to The Pro Bono Stars @ Gibson Dunn!

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Niz-Chavez Amicus Brief TO FILE

No. 19-863 IN THE

_______________

AGUSTO NIZ-CHAVEZ,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

_______________

On Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court of Appeals For the Sixth Circuit _______________

BRIEF OF THIRTY-THREE FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGES AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

AS AMICI CURIAE

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER _______________

RICHARD W. MARK

Counsel of Record

AMER S. AHMED

TIMOTHY SUN

DORAN J. SATANOVE

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10166 (212) 351-4000 rmark@gibsondunn.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

1

1

Amici curiae are thirty-three former immigration judges and members of the Board of Immigration Ap- peals (“BIA” or “Board”).2

Amici curiae have dedicated their careers to the immigration court system and to upholding the immi gration laws of the United States. Each is intimately familiar with the functioning of immigration courts and is invested in improving the fairness and effi- ciency of the United States immigration scheme. Amici curiae’s extensive experience adjudicating im- migration cases provides a unique perspective on the procedures and practicalities of immigration proceed- ings.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The straightforward question this case presents is one of enormous practical significance: Must the ini- tial written notice served on noncitizens to commence their removal proceedings provide—in one docu- ment—the “time and place at which the proceedings will be held” (along with charges and other specified information) in order to satisfy the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), or does the statute allow the govern- ment to cobble together the required elements of a “notice to appear” from multiple documents, issued at different times, some containing misinformation, and

1 All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. Amici state that this brief was not authored in whole or in part by coun- sel for any party, and that no person or entity other than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.

2 The appendix provides a complete list of signatories.

2

none of which alone contains all of the statutorily re- quired information?

Reversing the Sixth Circuit and holding that § 1229(a)’s requirements must be included in a single document will greatly reduce the procedural and bu- reaucratic errors attendant in a two-step process that detrimentally impact thousands of noncitizens law- fully seeking to remain in this country.

I. For noncitizens applying for cancellation of re- moval, service of a valid “notice to appear” under § 1229(a) triggers the so-called “stop-time” rule, which terminates the period of continuous presence required for cancellation eligibility. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(d)(1), 1229b(a)(2), 1229b(b)(1)(A). Separately but relatedly, for noncitizens ordered removed in ab- sentia, whether that “severe” penalty, Pereira v. Ses- sions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2111 (2018), is proper depends on whether the notice served on the noncitizen satis- fied the requirements of §1229(a). 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A). This Court’s decision will thus touch not only those like Petitioner who are seeking cancel- lation of removal, but also those who may not even have been provided sufficient notice to appear for their removal hearings—and potentially severely punished as a result.

II. The Sixth Circuit’s ruling approves a two-step notice process that involves: (i) the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) serving on a noncitizen a putative notice to appear lacking time-and-place in- formation (or, perhaps worse, that includes fake time- and-place information), and (ii) only after that notice to appear is filed and docketed with the immigration court, the immigration court separately sending a “no- tice of hearing” supplying the time-and-place infor- mation to the noncitizen.

3

Under this two-step process an initial notice lack- ing § 1229(a)’s time-and-place information languishes in a proverbial “No Man’s Land” until the notice is filed with an immigration court and entered into the court’s computer systems—a process that can take years. This delay increases the risk of procedural er- rors and lost filings, such as crucial Change of Address forms, which can result in noncitizens never receiving time-and-place information at all—potentially result- ing in wholly unjustified in absentia removal orders.

Sorting through those issues adds to immigration judges’ fact-finding burdens by requiring them to di- vert attention from the merits of a case to investigate collateral issues like whether time-and-place infor- mation was provided in a second document; whether that document was properly served; and whether a fil- ing like a Change of Address form was submitted but ultimately lost in “No Man’s Land.” When coupled with the pressure to complete cases—even if it means churning out in absentia removal orders without fully considering whether the noncitizen received adequate time-and-place notice—the result may be an increase in unwarranted removal orders.

These problems would be ameliorated if the gov- ernment simply provided the actual time-and-place information in a single document as required by § 1229(a).

III. Requiring DHS to work with the Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”) to obtain time- and-place information before serving a notice to ap- pear—and including such information in that docu- ment, as § 1229(a) and Pereira require—is practical and within the government’s capabilities.

4

A single-step notice process, consistent with this Court’s ruling in Pereira, furthers the due process ax- iom that a party charged to defend against a legal pro- ceeding must receive notice of the time and place of the proceeding and an opportunity to be heard.

*****************

Read the complete brief, with better formatting, at the link!

Of course we couldn’t have done this without the amazing talent and assistance of Amer S. Ahmed and the rest of the “Pro Bono All-Star Team” 🎖🏆 @ Gibson Dunn! Just another example of the essential contribution of pro bono lawyers to literally saving our legal system that has been featured on “Courtside” this week!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-14-20

DUE PROCESS: Round Table ⚔️🛡 Files Amicus Brief in Yanez-Pena v. Barr (5th Cir.) Cert. Petition — Pereira Issue

Richard W. Mark, Esquire
Partner
Gibson Dunn
New York

Amer S. Ahmed, Esquire
Partner
Gibson Dunn
New York

Read the entire brief here:

Yanez-Pena Amicus Brief TO FILE

Here’s the summary from the brief :

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

It is an axiom of due process that a party charged to defend against a legal proceeding must receive notice of the time and place of the proceeding and an opportunity to be heard. This Court’s ruling in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), reflects that axiom in the context of initiating removal proceedings by “notice to appear.”

This petition presents a straightforward question of enormous practical significance that has divided the five courts of appeals to have considered the issue: Must the initial written notice served on noncitizens to commence their removal proceedings provide—in

1 All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. Amici state that this brief was not authored in whole or in part by counsel for any party, and that no person or entity other than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.

2 The appendix provides a complete list of signatories.

2

one document—the “time and place at which the proceedings will be held” (along with charges and other specified information) in order to satisfy the require- ments of 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), or does the statute allow the government to cobble together the required elements of a “notice to appear” from multiple documents, issued at different times, none of which alone contain all of the statutorily required information?

Resolution of this issue will affect thousands of people in the immigration system. For noncitizens applying for cancellation of removal, service of a valid “notice to appear” triggers the so-called “stop-time” rule, which terminates the period of continuous pres- ence required for cancellation eligibility. For noncitizens ordered removed in absentia, whether that se- vere penalty is proper depends on whether the notice served on the noncitizen satisfied the requirements of § 1229(a).

This Court should grant review to resolve the accelerating circuit split over this issue. The Fifth Circuit, agreeing with the Sixth Circuit, held that a defective “notice to appear” lacking the statutorily required time-and-place information could be “cured” by a subsequent “notice of hearing” containing that information, such that the separate documents considered together become “a notice to appear,” with the stop- time rule being triggered upon later service of the “curative” notice of hearing. See Yanez-Pena v. Barr, 952 F.3d 239 (5th Cir. 2020); Garcia-Romo v. Barr, 940 F.3d 192 (6th Cir. 2019). The Third and Tenth Circuits, based on the plain language of § 1229(a) and this Court’s decision in Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2105, have reached the opposite conclusion. See Guadalupe v. Atty. Gen., 951 F.3d 161 (3d Cir. 2020); Banuelos v. Barr, 953 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2020). A divided panel

3

of the Ninth Circuit was in accord with the Third and Tenth Circuits, before that court granted rehearing en banc. See Lopez v. Barr, 925 F.3d 396, 405 (9th Cir. 2019), vacated and reh’g en banc granted, 948 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2020).

This Court should bring harmony to federal law by granting certiorari, reversing the Fifth Circuit, and restoring the common-sense interpretation of § 1229(a) as requiring one document that satisfies the statute’s requirements.

I. The question presented affects many thousands of people across the country. As the government told this Court in 2018, “almost 100 percent” of putative notices to appear omit the required time-and-place in- formation. Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2111. Hundreds of thousands of notices to appear are served each year; a dispute about validity is embedded in every proceed- ing initiated with a notice that lacks time-and-place information. Indeed, tens of thousands of cancellation applications remain pending, each one requiring an IJ to determine whether the stop-time rule was triggered by § 1229(a) notice. Similarly, tens of thousands of in absentia removal orders are issued every year, each one dependent on whether proceedings began with the noncitizen’s being served a notice to appear that com- plies with § 1229(a).

This case involves the application of § 1229(a) in both the cancellation of removal and in absentia removal contexts, thus presenting an optimal vehicle to address the question presented. See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (“Pet.”) at 22-24.

II. Deciding the question presented will also pro- mote uniformity in the nation’s immigration laws. Uniformity in this sphere is a foundational principle

4

of American law, with the Constitution explicitly directing Congress “[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4. But there can be no uniform law if basic questions affect- ing the right of an individual to remain in the country get an answer that varies among the circuits. Such a regime would result in divergent outcomes based on geography alone, not the merits of any particular noncitizen’s case.

This unfairness may be exacerbated by the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) discretion to select the venue for a removal proceeding, and thus the law that governs the case. DHS’s ability to choose the venue, coupled with its ability to transfer detainees wherever it sees fit, opens the door to unfair forum shopping for the circuit law it prefers.

III. Requiring DHS to work with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) to obtain time-and-place information before serving a notice to appear—and including such information in that document, as § 1229(a) and Pereira require—is practical and will reduce administrative inefficiency and error. Doing so will also achieve the legislative purpose of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”), Pub. L. 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546, of which § 1229(a) was a part, by instituting a “single form of notice” to “simplify procedures for initiating removal proceedings.” H.R. Rep. 104-469(I), 1996 WL 168955 at *159.

***************************

Many thanks to our GOOD friends Richard W. Mark and Amer S. Ahmed and their team over at the NY Office of Gibson Dunn for their extraordinary pro bono assistance in drafting our brief.

Due Process Forever!👍🏼

PWS

05-12-20

GOOD NEWS IN THE TIME OF THE PLAGUE: 10th Cir. Overrules BIA, Finds Defective Notice To Appear Can’t Later Be “Cured” To Invoke The “Stop Time” Rule For Cancellation of Removal! –Banuelos-Galviz v. Barr

Banuelos-Galviz v. Barr

Banuelos-Galviz v. Barr, 10^th Cir. , 03-25-20, published

PANEL: HOLMES, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge Bacharach

KEY QUOTE:

Given the unambiguous language of the pertinent statutes, the stop- time rule is not triggered by the combination of an incomplete notice to appear and a notice of hearing. We thus grant the petition for review and remand to the Board for further proceedings.

*********************

“No ‘Chevron deference’ for you, BIA!” Particularly, where you ignore the clear statutory language as well as the Supreme’s ruling in Pereira. The precedent overruled by the 10^th Circuit is Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez, 27 I. & N. Dec. 520, 529 (BIA 2019) (en banc), a rare (these days) en banc ruling that generated a feisty and correct dissent (also rare following the “Ashcroft purge of ‘03”). But, because of the arcane rules governing the BIA, the overruled precedent in Mendoza-Hernandez will continue to apply everywhere except the 3^rd & 10th Circuits.

Not Rocket Science: Notwithstanding the BIA’s “smokescreens,” and that the Fifth and Sixth Circuits have managed to get it wrong, this is a very straightforward reading of the statute that any first-year law student should get right on an exam. We now have three Circuits that have gotten it right, the 3^rd, 10^th, and 9^th, and two that have bobbled it. But, as noted by the 10^th Circuit, the 9^th Circuit opinion has been vacated pending rehearing en banc. Lopez v. Barr, 925 F.3d 396, 410 (Callahan, J., dissenting), reh’g en banc granted, 948 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2020) (Thomas, C.J.).

More “ADR” on the horizon: In any event, the DHS’s choice to serve clearly defective notices combined with the BIA’s “straining to get to deportation” to satisfy their political handlers in the DOJ is continuing to create an awful mess in the Immigration Courts. That, in turn, should continue to “artificially jack up the backlog” and create even more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) until it’s finally resolved.

PWS

03-25-20

3RD CIR. TO BIA ON PEREIRA: Tough Noogies, No Chevron Deference For You, Because Your En Banc Precedent Decision In Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez, 27 I&N Dec. 520 (BIA 2019) Is Dead Wrong! — Guadalupe v. U.S. Att’y Gen. — Dissenting BIA Judges Get Some Vindication!

3cirStopTimeopinion

Guadalupe v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 3rd Cir., 02-26-20, published

PANEL: RESTREPO, ROTH and FISHER, Circuit Judges

OPINION BY: Judge ROTH

KEY QUOTE:

It is our interpretation of Pereira that it establishes a bright-line rule:

A putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings is not a “notice to appear under section 1229(a),” and so does not trigger the stop-time rule.”14

The language is clear. Pereira holds that an NTA shall contain all the information set out in section 1229(a)(1). An NTA which omits the time and date of the hearing is defective. To file an effective NTA, the government cannot, in maybe four days or maybe four months, file a second – and possibly third – Notice with the missing information. And it makes sense to have such a bright-line rule: The ability of the noncitizen to receive and to keep track of the date and place of the hearing, along with the legal basis and cited acts to be addressed at the hearing, is infinitely easier if all that information is contained in a single document – as described in

blanks for time and place” but holding that this deficiency was not of jurisdictional significance); Perez-Sanchez v. United States Att’y Gen., 935 F.3d 1148, 1154 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Ortiz-Santiago, 924 F.3d at 962) (“Under Pereira, . . . a notice of hearing sent later might be relevant to a harmlessness inquiry, but it does not render the original NTA non- deficient.”).

14 Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2113-14.

7

Case: 19-2239

Document: 67 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/26/2020

15

Moreover, it seems to us to be no great imposition on the government to require it to communicate all that information to the noncitizen in one document. If a notice is sent to the noncitizen with only a portion of the statutorily required information, a valid NTA can easily be sent later which contains all the required information in one document – at such time as the government has gathered all that information together. The complete NTA would then trigger the stop-time rule.

The government argues, however, that the BIA’s

decision in Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez should be given

Chevron16 deference as a reasonable reading of an ambiguous

statute. There, the BIA relied on Pereira’s position that “the

fundamental purpose of notice is to convey essential

information to the alien, such that the notice creates a

reasonable expectation of the alien’s appearance at the removal

proceeding.” 17 The BIA determined that this purpose can be

served just as well by two or more documents as it could by

18

We conclude, however, that Chevron deference is

15 We do note that in Pereira the Court left “for another day whether a putative notice to appear that omits any of the other categories of information enumerated in § 1229(a)(1) triggers the stop-time rule.” 138 S. Ct. at 2113 n. 5.

16 Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

17 Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 531.

18 Id.

the statute.

one.

8

Case: 19-2239 Document: 67 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/26/2020

inapplicable here because we are not merely interpreting the

19

whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira forecloses

stop-time rule.

our interpretation of the statute in Orozco-Velasquez.

***********************

What does it mean:

- In the 3rd Circuit, undocumented individuals who have been continuously physically present in the U.S. for at least 10 years prior to receiving a “Pereira-compliant” Notice to Appear” (“NTA”) are exempt from the “stop time” rule for non-lawful-permanent resident cancellation of removal.
- An “after the fact” Notice of Hearing from EOIR does NOT remedy the “Pereira-defect” in the NTA for purposes of the stop-time rule.
- Those whose cancellation of removal applications were improperly denied, or who were not given a chance to apply, because of the stop-time rule should be able to reopen their cases. This should add to the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and jack up the backlog some more, at least within the 3rd Cir.
- The 3rd Circuit covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.
- This mess was largely self-inflicted by DHS & EOIR. They had many chances to remedy the “Pereira problem’ over the years, but chose not to do so.
- Meanwhile, we have a Circuit conflict. The 9th Circuit previously had rejected Mendoza-Hernandez in Lopez v. Barr, https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/05/28/courts-as-bia-continues-to-squeeze-the-life-out-of-pereira-9th-circuit-finally-pushes-back-why-the-lost-art-of-bia-en-banc-review-dissent-is-so-essential-to-due-process/. However, that case was vacated and rehearing en banc was granted. As noted by the Third Circuit, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the BIA. So, wrong as it is, Mendoza-Hernandez will remain in effect except in the Third Circuit, unless and until other Circuits reject it.
- I would expect the DOJ to find a petition for rehearing in this case, as they did in the Ninth Circuit. That could result in the Third Circuit’s decision being put “on hold.”
- This split will eventually have to be resolved by the Supremes. But, that’s unlikely to happen until next year.
- Congratulations and much appreciation to the six BIA Appellate Immigration Judges, led by former Judge John Guendelsberger, who courageously dissented from the en banc decision in Mendoza-Hernandez:
  - Judge John Guendelsberger, author
  - Judge Charles Adkins-Blanch, Vice Chair
  - Judge Patricia Cole
  - Judge Edward Grant
  - Judge Michael J. Creppy
  - Judge Molly Kendall Clark
  - Perhaps not surprisingly, Judges Guendelsberger, Cole, & Kendall Clark have since retired from the BIA.
- Dissent remains important, if exceedingly rare at today’s BIA, where DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats actively encourage “go along to get along,” pro-regime jurisprudence. Also, en banc decisions are disfavored at today’s BIA.

PWS

02-28-20

Summary

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA10 Stop-Time Victory: Estrada-Cardona v. Garland

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!👍🏼

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: