"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
“Statutes are so totally annoying! Enforcing them is above our pay grade, if it burdens our ‘partners’ at DHS Enforcement! But, we’ll ‘throw the book’ at individuals for anything! Seems fair to us!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Pereira and Niz-Chavez, along with the text and structure of the statutory provisions governing in absentia removal orders and Notices to Appear, unambiguously required the government to provide Singh with a Notice to Appear as a single document that included all the information set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), including the time and date of the removal proceedings. Because the government did not provide Singh with statutorily compliant notice before his removal hearing, Singh’s in absentia removal order is subject to recission pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). We grant Singh’s petition on that ground, do not reach his exceptional circumstances argument, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
PETITION GRANTED and REMANDED.
***************************
No surprise to “Sir Jeffrey” Chase, me, or experts. What is “below the radar screen” here is how the BIA’s “pattern or practice” of intentional misinterpretation of this very clear statutory provision over three Administrations and in a number of situations has fed the backlog.
One of the “gimmicks” used by DOJ and EOIR to short-circuit due process has been to use bogus “in absentia” orders to complete cases without real hearings and without doing much work while creating a “myth of non-appearance” by asylum seekers. Indeed, under Garland whole dockets were set up with the expectation that individuals would not appear. Agency officials then “cheered” having produced these bogus “final orders.”
It would be unusual if ANY of those subjected to this process under a Garland received “compliant NTAs” sufficient to support in absentia orders! Even with these “gimmicks,” and many more judges, haphazardly selected and often lacking expertise, the backlog has mushroomed.
In truth, asylum seekers appear for their hearings at a rate approaching 100% provided that they get proper notice, understand the process, and are represented. A competent Attorney General would take this empirical data, work with legal services groups, and develop a process to comply with the statute, improve the notice system, promote universal representation, and reduce in absentia hearings.
The obvious first step would be to absolutely require DHS to comply with statutory requirements in issuing Notices to Appear and to impose meaningful sanctions and consequences for the failure to do this. To the extent that the failure to comply is a function of the EOIR/DOJ bureaucracy, those bureaucrats and politicos responsible should also be held accountable by the Immigration Courts.
That’s what fair, impartial, independent judging is supposed to be about! But, Garland, like his predecessors, has tried to “gimmick” his way out of providing fair hearings as required by the statute and our Constitution while ignoring “best practices.”
Does anyone seriously think that a group of “real appellate judges” — experts committed to fair and impartial interpretations that advance due process while promoting best practices — would have come up with the Laparra nonsense? No way!
Yet given a chance to materially improve EOIR’s performance, Garland has chosen the “quality, excellence, and due process for all is optional, at best” approach of his predecessors, even if shying away from their overt weaponization of EOIR against migrants.
Remember, when Garland and company inevitably attempt to deflect or shift blame for their backlogs and “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” to the victims, those stuck in his dysfunctional system and their lawyers, this backlog is largely self-created by folks who have consistently ignored expert advice and input while failing to install competence, expertise, and demonstrated commitment to guaranteeing fairness and due process for all into a broken, biased, and intentionally unfair system!
We, the undersigned organizations committed to the rights of asylum seekers and refugees, write to express our serious concerns over reports that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has begun a new practice of using Title 42 to expel Venezuelan migrants to Colombia. We understand that the first two Venezuelan individuals to be expelled under this policy were flown to Colombia on January 27, 2022 and that additional Title 42 expulsion flights to the country are expected to take place on “a regular basis” for Venezuelans who “previously resided” in Colombia. This practice represents a concerning and unacceptable escalation to your administration’s misguided approach to border and migration policy that flouts domestic and international refugee and human rights law. We urge you to cease these and other Title 42 expulsions immediately, to prioritize protection and access to asylum in your regional and domestic migration policies, and to engage asylum and human rights experts as you pursue new policies.
One year into your administration, you have continued the misuse of a xenophobic Trump-era policy that weaponized an obscure provision of Title 42 of the U.S. code to summarily block and expel individuals, often repeatedly, from the U.S. southern border, without providing them the opportunity to seek asylum or the ability to access any protection screening required by law. These new flights to Colombia come amidst troubling reports that your administration placed on hold plans to restart asylum processing at U.S. ports of entry and that high-level officials have resisted ending Trump-era asylum restrictions, including Title 42 expulsions.
Title 42 expulsions have nothing to do with protecting public health and are not necessary to protect the public from the spread of COVID-19. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, public health experts, the UN Refugee Agency, and other humanitarian advocates have demonstrated that it is possible to protect public health and ensure access to asylum simultaneously. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) objected to the use of Title 42 for mass expulsions of migrants and confirmed such expulsions lacked a valid public health basis. Your Chief Medical Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci has himself stated that immigrants are “absolutely not” driving a COVID-19 outbreak and that expelling migrants is not a solution to an outbreak.
Over the past twelve months, your administration expelled people—often expelling the same person repeatedly—from the U.S. southern border more than one million times. In just the first seven months of your administration, U.S. border officials carried out 704,000 expulsions, a significant increase from the Trump administration’s 400,000 expulsions conducted over ten months. In addition to the new expulsion flights to Colombia, DHS also carries out land expulsions to Mexico and expulsion flights to send individuals and families back to their countries of origin, including Haiti, Guatemala, Honduras, and Brazil. Even though your administration has acknowledged that “Haiti is grappling with a deteriorating political crisis, violence, and a staggering increase in human rights abuses…” – the U.S. has since September 2021, inexplicably chartered nearly 150 flights of almost 16,000 Haitians, including families with infants, back to a country that is unquestionably unsafe without offering them any opportunity to seek protection before expulsion. These expulsions under Title 42 violate the law and risk sending people back to dangerous conditions – sometimes the very ones that caused them to seek safety in the first place.
As you are aware, Venezuela is currently facing a severe economic, political, and humanitarian crisis. Millions of Venezuelans have left the country due to political persecution, a collapse of basic services, food insecurity, and rampant violence. Over 1.7 million Venezuelans are being hosted in Colombia and many have been granted temporary status there and only a small percentage of Venezuelans have sought asylum in the United States; however, Colombia is not safe for all Venezuelan migrants and refugees. Venezuelans, and all other individuals fleeing persecution have the right to seek asylum under U.S. law and to have their claims for protection assessed on a case-by-case basis. Your administration is blatantly violating the law by expelling these people to other countries in the region, such as Colombia, and we are deeply troubled by the informal and opaque arrangements with third countries that facilitate these expulsions. Your administration terminated several such agreements with Central American countries when you came into office, making these new flights especially concerning.
During its first year in office, your administration committed to a comprehensive regional approach to migration, aiming to strengthen asylum systems and refugee resettlement programs in the region and promote “safe, orderly, and humane migration.” Despite this pledge, your administration’s actions suggest that the United States seeks out negotiations with countries throughout Latin America that externalize its borders further south, shifts responsibility to countries already hosting millions of refugees, and impedes people’s ability to seek protection in the United States. Earlier this month, under pressure from your administration, the Mexican government implemented new requirements that Venezuelans obtain a visa to travel to Mexico. According to reports, your administration has also requested that Mexico sign a safe third country agreement, which could effectively block most individuals (except Mexicans) from seeking asylum in the United States.
We urge your administration to abandon efforts to prevent people from seeking asylum through externalized migration controls in the region and to undermine the right of people to seek protection in the United States. As you pursue other regional efforts, it is imperative that your administration operate with increased transparency and engage with asylum and human rights experts about potential efforts such as anticipated regional compacts on migration with other countries in the Americas. While regional protections must be strengthened, these efforts must not and need not come at the expense of existing protection mechanisms and access to asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, including at ports of entry.
Your administration has the responsibility to uphold U.S. refugee law and treaty obligations. We call on your administration to cease further expulsions of Venezuelan migrants to Colombia, and to immediately end its use of all expulsions under Title 42. Our organizations continue to welcome the opportunity to engage on and inform how to promote a protection centered approach to “safe, orderly, and humane migration,” including restoring access to asylum at the border, including at ports of entry.
immigrants’ rights = human rights = civil rights = racial justice = economic stability = common good
By failing miserably on the first, the Administration has found itself flailing and failing on the rest.
Nowhere is this more apparent than at DOJ! Garland has squandered the precious first year in office by NOT cleaning house at EOIR and bringing in practical experts in immigration/human rights/due process to remake and reform the system so that it can deal fairly, timely, and justly with asylum applicants applying at the border and and elsewhere in the U.S., as they are legally entitled to do.
Instead of expertly culling the vast majority of backlogged pending cases which are neither priorities nor viable removal cases at this point, Garland has built the unnecessary, largely self-created backlog at a record pace to more than 1.6 million with no end in sight! Add that to his disgraceful failure to stand up against illegal and immoral policies and clear violations of human rights at the border by his own Administration and you get today’s catastrophic situation.
“Standing tall” for the rule of law (and human decency) is supposed to be the Attorney General’s job. Why are these NGOs being forced to do it for him?
How bad have things gotten at Garland’s DOJ? This has already been a tough week that saw his DOJ attorneys “blow” a plea bargain in a major civil rights case, be excoriated by the 4th Circuit in a published case for a miserably botched performance in what should have been a routine “reasonable fear” case, and have Chairwoman Lofgren introduce her Article 1 bill with a broadside against DOJ’s horrible stewardship over EOIR.
As if to punctuate Chairwoman Lofgren’s critique, Garland topped it off with this gem: a beatdown in a pro se Salvadoran asylum case, which OIL basically failed to “pull” although the BIA decision conflicted with Garland’s own more recent precedent, from a Fourth Circuit panel that included two recent Trump appointees not heretofore known for vigorously defending asylum seekers’ rights!https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/pro-se-ca4-psg-remand-luna-deportillo-v-garland
Folks, this is NOT “good government.” Not by a long shot!
There is no more important task — NONE — facing DOJ than pumping some due process and quality back into immigration law and making the long overdue management, personnel, procedural, and legal quality reforms at EOIR.
Yes, that apparently would require Garland to take on some folks at the White House who obviously consider human rights to be a “political strategy,” integrity and courage optional, and live in mortal fear of Stephen Miller and far-right nativists. It would mean taking decisive actions to treat asylum seekers and other migrants (including many individuals of color) as “persons” under our Constitution. It would end the intentional “Dred Scottification of the other.” It would send some Sessions/Barr “plants and holdovers” packing from their current jobs!
Unquestionably, these moves would incite predictable, tiresome, apoplectic reactions by Miller and the GOP White Nationalist cabal on the Hill. They would put Garland “in the spotlight” and interrupt the serenity of his inner sanctum on the 5th floor of the DOJ where he apparently likes to contemplate the world and “things other than due process for immigrants.”
But, taking on folks like that is what good lawyers are supposed to do. As a public lawyer, it’s not just about being somebody’s “mouthpiece” — it’s standing up for the rule of law!
I among many others have said from the outset that Garland won’t be able to sweep the total meltdown at EOIR and in immigration legal positions under the table, much as he obviously would like them to go away! Yes, he inherited an awful mess from his Trump predecessors. But, almost a full year in, that doesn’t absolve him of responsibility for failing to initiate the common sense steps to fix it and to bring in experts who actually know what they are doing and have the guts and backbone to follow through — even when the going gets tough, as it undoubtedly will. The problems at DOJ go far beyond EOIR; but,EOIR must be the starting place for fixing them. There is no more time to lose!
It’s time for Garland to start worrying about running “America’s most unfair and dysfunctional courts,” defending grotesque human rights violations and scofflaw policies by his own Administration, and a DOJ that takes untenable and embarrassingly bad legal positions before the Federal Courts. Much as he’d like to pretend that “immigration doesn’t matter,” or expressed a different way “human lives don’t matter if they are only migrants,” he’s starting to get pressure from Congress, the Article IIIs, and NGOs to fix EOIR and “shape up” the DOJ’s lousy, sometimes unprofessional and ethically questionable, approach to immigration, human rights, and racial justice issues. Justice for immigrants is the starting point for achieving racial justice in America. PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Garland’s failure to institute widely recommended common sense legal reforms — government for the common good — at EOIR undermines our democracy while endangering “real” human lives every day! That’s a toxic legacy that he won’t be able to avoid!
DISCLAIMER: While I have been inspired by, and drawn on, the work of my friends Nolan & Michele, this posting is my view and does not necessarily represent either of their views on MPP, its merits, and/or the litigation challenging it.
INA section 1229a(b)(4)(A) prohibits the government from paying for lawyers to represent immigrants in removal proceedings. The pertinent part of this section states that, “the alien shall have the privilege of being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the alien’s choosing who is authorized to practice in such proceedings” (emphasis added).
But there is an alternative. EOIR has a program for recognizing organizations and accrediting their non-attorney representatives to represent aliens in removal proceeds for a nominal fee, and INA section 1229a(b)(4)(A) does not prohibit the government from providing these organizations with the funds they need to expand their immigration operations.
The government established the recognition and accreditation program to increase the availability of competent immigration legal representation for low-income and indigent persons, which promotes the effective and efficient administration of justice.
Two levels of accreditation are available. Full accreditation authorizes the accredited representative to represent immigrants in proceedings before DHS, in proceedings before an immigration judge, and in appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Partial accreditation just authorizes them to assist immigrants in proceedings before DHS, such as in applying for an immigration benefit.
Aliens needing low-cost legal representation for removal proceedings or to apply for asylum can find recognized organizations and accredited representatives in their area on the roster of Recognized Organizations and Accredited Representatives. Currently, there are 761 recognized organizations and 1,970 accredited representatives, but only 300 of them have full accreditation.
An organization applying for recognition must establish that it is a Federal, tax-exempt, non-profit religious, charitable, social service, or similar organization; that it provides immigration legal services primarily to low-income and indigent clients; and that, if it charges fees, it has a written policy for accommodating clients who are unable to pay the fees.
And it must establish that it has access to adequate knowledge, information, and experience in all aspects of immigration law and procedure.
An organization applying for the accreditation of a representative must establish that the representative has the character and fitness needed for representing immigration clients; that he has not been subject to disciplinary proceedings or been convicted of a serious crime; and that he has the necessary knowledge in immigration law and procedures.
Professor Michele Pistone Villanova Law
Excellent training programs are available to provide representatives with the knowledge they need to represent immigrants in removal proceedings before an immigration judge, such as the Villanova Interdisciplinary Immigration Studies Training for Advocates (VIISTA) — a university-based online certificate program that was established by Michele Pistone, a law professor at Villanova in August 2020, to provides the training immigrant advocates need to become accredited representatives.
VIISTA covers all of the topics needed to become an effective immigrant advocate — such as interviewing, how to work with an interpreter, how to work with migrant children, trial advocacy and, of course, immigration law.
Biden’s promise to maximize legal representation
Biden included maximizing legal representation in his “Blueprint for a Fair, Orderly, and Human Immigration System.” His plan to achieve that objective includes providing $23 million to support legal orientation programs — but orientation programs do not provide legal representation. In fact, the statement of work for the LAB contract solicitation requires orientation presenters to explain that they do not provide legal advice or representation.
Accredited representatives with full accreditation do provide legal advice and legal representation — but there aren’t nearly enough of them now to meet the need for such assistance.
Biden could use the funds he has earmarked for the legal orientation program to provide recognized organizations with the money they need to increase the number of accredited representatives — but a better solution would be for congress to provide the necessary funding.
For many asylum-seeking immigrants, an accredited representative with immigration law training may be their only hope for representation when they appear at their asylum hearings.
**********************
Thanks for this timely and informative piece, Nolan! Amazingly, this “accessible” analysis of an under-publicized opportunity is Nolan’s 300th published op-ed on The Hill! Congratulations! 🎊🍾
Go on over to The Hill to read the full article! The excerpt published above also contains helpful links to the VIISTA Program @ Villanova.
The extraordinary, innovative VIISTA Program began with Michele’s dinner table conversation with Judges Larry “The Burmanator” Burman, Mimi Tsankov (now NAIJ President), and me following an FBA Conference in DC several years ago. I doubt that any other lawyer in America could have turned it into reality. Michele got all the grants for seed money herself — winning a prestigious Kaplan Family Foundation Grant for Innovation in the process!
Because VIISTA is modularized, available online, constantly evaluated (including, of course, by students), and updated, it is “built for rapid expansion” throughout America, as suggested by Nolan. Even now, Michele is actively looking for “partners.”
My Round Table 🛡⚔️ colleague Judge Jeffrey Chase and I were privileged to have had modest roles in VIISTA’s curriculum development and review. Additionally, our Round Table colleague Judge Ilyce Shugall is one of the exceptional VIISTA faculty.
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) A “Fighting Knightess of the Round Table,” she’s also one of VIISTA’s talented expert faculty members who knows exactly what asylum seekers need to prove to win in what currently is “America’s most dysfunctional court system!” She has “lived life on both sides of the bench!”
Recently (pre-omicron) Jeffrey and I were fortunate enough to be invited to a “VIISTA Anniversary Celebration” @ Villanova. We had a chance to meet not only folks from the Kaplan Foundation and Villanova (which has been totally supportive), but also to meet and hear from some faculty and members of the “Inaugural Class” about their achievements and their plans for the future.
This is truly “making the law better” and “delivering justice” at a grass roots level! And, as Nolan points out, expanded programs like this might be asylum seekers’ best chance of getting great representation that could be “outcome determinative.” Michele’s goal is 10,000 new representatives in 10 years! Who could doubt her ability to pull it off!
By now, it should be clear to both advocates and the Biden Administration that “Remain in Mexico” is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. No matter what the lack of merits to the Fifth Circuit’s decision might be (I’m sure that its tone-deaf, disconnected from reality and humanity approach will be the subject of numerous critical commentaries and law review articles), no relief can be expected from either the right-wing Supremes or the feckless Dems in Congress.
Given that the MPP program is going to be judicially imposed, the Administration and advocates can still get together to make it work in compliance with due process. It’s well within their power and not rocket 🚀 science:
A Better Due-Process- Focused Approach To “Remain in Mexico:”
Better BIA. Appoint a new BIA with appellate judges who are practical scholars in asylum and will establish coherent, correct legal guidance on domestic violence claims, gender based asylum, gang-based claims, nexus, “failure of state protection,” credibility, corroboration, the operation of the presumption of future persecution, the DHS’s burden of rebutting the presumption, “rise to the level,” right to counsel, fair hearings, fair notice, and other critical areas where the current “Trump holdover” BIA’s guidance has been lacking, inadequate, or defective. They can also insure consistency in asylum adjudications, something that has long escaped EOIR.
Better Judges. Get a corps of Immigration Judges with established records and reputations for scholarly expertise in asylum, demonstrated commitment to due-process, practicality, and fairness to asylum seekers to handle these cases.
Better Representation. Work with pro bono, advocacy groups, VIISTA, and the UNHCR to insure that every person applying under this program has access to competent representation and adequate opportunities to prepare and document cases. Another one of Nolan’s good ideas for VIISTA-type programs would be for Congress to provide scholarships for students (beyond those already available from Villanova). I have also gotten “anecdotal reports” that EOIR has built up an unconscionable backlog in processing of applications for Accreditation & Recognition. If confirmed, this must be immediately addressed.
Better Conditions. Work with the Government of Mexico and the UNHCR to guarantee the health, security, safety, and welfare of those waiting in camps in Mexico.
Indeed, the Biden Administration could and should already have put this very straightforward, achievable program in place during its first year in office, instead of “treading water” (or worse, in many cases)!
Not all of the white men who served on the court were paragons of morality. Not all of them went to college, let alone law school. But they each had the golden ticket: low melanin and high testosterone.
So now, it is fascinating to watch as people work themselves into conniptions about Joe Biden committing to choosing a Supreme Court nominee from a group that has long been overlooked: Black women.
. . . .
I say, look at it another way.
Of the 115 justices who have served on the bench since 1789, 108 — roughly 94 percent — have been white men. Zero percent have been Black women.
Viewed this way, through the long sweep of American history, the United States has some work to do.
There is no legitimate or logical argument against inclusion. Consciously including racial groups can be one of the most effective reparative remedies for centuries of racial exclusion.
Only when we disentangle the concepts of whiteness and maleness from the concept of power can we see the damage the association has done. Only then can we truly accept and celebrate the power of inclusion, diversity and equity. Only then can representative democracy in a pluralistic society begin to live up to its ideals.
********************
Read the full article at the link.
Black women historically have made outsized, grossly under-appreciated contributions to America.
I also note that the overall qualifications of Biden’s list of potential nominees exceed those of the Trump McConnell nominees. The latter’s qualifications were largely limited to proven subservience to right wing judicial activism (particularly elimination of a woman’s right to choose and civil rights for individuals of color), indifference to human suffering, compassion, and practicality, combined with support from out of the mainstream, right wing legal organizations like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. Being White and Christian also didn’t appear to hurt their chances.
The idea that Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were the two “best qualified lawyers in America” to serve on the High Court is preposterous!
Inside the Gulag In the fine tradition of Josef Stalin, like US Presidents before him, President Biden finds it useful to have a “due process free zone” to stash people of color.
In 2017, after serving 22 years in prison for a gang-related murder I committed as a teenager, the California parole board granted me early release due to my rehabilitation and leadership while incarcerated. I was incredibly fortunate to get what I thought would be a second chance at life, and I committed myself to using my freedom to improve the world around me.
But I had to put those plans on hold. Because I was undocumented, I was immediately transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody at Yuba County Jail. The two years I spent there awaiting a decision on my immigration status were far worse than the over two decades I spent in 12 different prisons serving out my sentence.
Yuba County Jail is the last county jail under contract with the federal government to hold immigrant detainees in California. For the two years I fought my immigration case, I was psychologically, emotionally and physically abused by the Yuba County Sheriff’s Department. Some of the cells I lived in had no drinking water, others did not have working toilets and others had no lights, leaving me and other detainees in the dark all day long. My stress increased and my blood pressure became dangerously high. In 2018, after a year at the jail, I finally won my immigration case. But Department of Homeland Security attorneys appealed the judge’s decision, keeping me separated from my family, fueling my depression and suicidal thoughts. After another year of fighting the appeal, I had to make an impossible choice: Die inside Yuba County Jail or risk imminent death in my native land. After two years of inhumane treatment, I chose the latter. I signed the paperwork for self-deportation and went back to my home country.
My story is just one of thousands playing out in federally contracted county jails and privately operated ICE detention centers across the country. Despite President Biden’s campaign promise to end the use of private prisons for immigration detention, for undocumented people being held at Yuba County Jail, no relief is coming.
Yuba County Jail has a long history of violating national detention standards. From 2010 to 2021, ICE’s own detention office conducted at least eight inspections at the jail and found 171 violations. Among those violations, inspection officials determined that a sergeant, who was involved in two use-of-force incidents at the jail, participated in his own reviews. As a result of the findings, 24 members of Congress wrote a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas demanding that the department terminate ICE’s contract with Yuba County. At the state level, California legislators passed SB29, forbidding local governments to enter into new detention agreements with ICE. But as The Chronicle’s reporting pointed out, in 2018, the same year SB29 took effect, ICE and Yuba County officials “quietly extended their contract” to 2099.
Why would Yuba County officials establish an indefinite contract with ICE as the rest of the state moves to end the use of its jails by federal immigration authorities? Follow the money. The contract with ICE earns the Yuba County Sheriff’s Department a minimum of just under $24,000 a day, whether or not any detainees are being held in the jail, totaling about $8.66 million per year.
When the pandemic hit, conditions inside the jail worsened. Following an April 2020 class-action lawsuit, court orders led the jail to decrease its detainee population. Thanks to the work of human right advocates and formerly detained undocumented people like myself, and others, the jail went from having 127 detainees in May 2020 to zero in late 2021. For those of us who had fought, staged hunger strikes and protested, both inside and outside the jail, it felt like we were finally seeing the end of immigrant detainment.
But our celebrations were brief. In the two months that the jail had no detainees, the county’s contract with ICE was still in place, earning it an estimated $1.4 million. And in December, ICE transported its first detainee back into the jail. As of this week, three people are now detained there under ICE custody.
The repopulation of the jail by ICE only means we will fight even harder for liberation and the termination of the contract. Over the past year, and despite being thousands of miles away, I found ways to raise my voice. I connected with others who were detained alongside me and who were also deported and encouraged them to join the fight. My wife, along with other mothers, sisters, and family members joined us as well. We hosted Instagram live videos as a space for storytelling. For weeks, I met with congressional offices and shared my story and the story of others, which ultimately led to their support.
At a recent Yuba County Board of Supervisors meeting, newly named Chairman Randy Fletcher said that the claims made in a letter sent by the ACLU to the Yuba County sheriff and Board of Supervisors about the multiple violations and unlawful conditions at the jail were not true. “They make a lot of accusations. … It’s not true. It’s just not true,” he said. But I and the other undocumented people who were detained there know what we suffered through is true. And it needs to stop.
. . . .
*******************
Read the rest of the story at the link.
Coercion and punishment have long been part of the plan. That’s because the Supremes have fabricated the concept that “civil” imprisonment isn’t “punishment.” Pure balderdash!
Also, how does a jail get paid $1.4 million by taxpayers for nothing? Sounds like a “fleecing of America.”
But, of course, neither Garland nor Mayorkas bother to look into these questionable practices. Rather curious in light of the recommendation of a “select task force of experts” at the end of the Obama Administration that detention contracts (which frequently make establishing accountability for abuses difficult or impossible) be ended and that DHS phase out unnecessary detention.
Lack of accountability for DHS Detention is a chronic problem. So are defective bond procedures by EOIR that several Federal Courts have found unconstitutional, but which Garland continues to defend! Arbitrary bond procedures, weak internal appellate review, and lack of helpful precedents all feed the system.
Also, EOIR’s brushing aside the intentional coercion, lack of access to counsel, absence of resources, inability to prepare and document cases all contribute to the dangerous dysfunction. New, independent, expert, progressive “real judges” at EOIR would not allow Mayorkas and Garland to keep sweeping these abuses under the carpet!
Perhaps that’s why Garland has been content to allow his “courts” to malfunction using a majority of Trump/Miller holdovers and some notorious “go along to get along” bureaucrats as “judges.” Voices of expertise and reason among the IJs, and there are some, are often “silenced,” “neutered,” or “intentionally frustrated” by a BIA stacked with apologists, sometimes flat-out advocates, for DHS Enforcement and anti-immigrant policies.
Meanwhile, journalists, advocates, and those who have experienced “The Gulag” first hand need to keep it in the headlines, continue to litigate vigorously against it, and make a record of the disgraceful gap between what America claims to stand for and what it actually does! And, they would do well to “keep turning up the heat” on Garland’s “star chambers” and on his own lack of accountability for the daily disasters that unfold under his auspices.
The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of LAPARRA, 28 I&N Dec. 425 (BIA 2022).
A respondent receives sufficient written notice to support the entry of an in absentia order of removal, even if he or she was served with a noncompliant notice to appear that did not specify the time or place of the hearing, where the respondent was properly served with a statutorily compliant notice of hearing specifying this information.Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), distinguished.Matter of Pena‑Mejia, 27 I&N Dec. 546 (BIA 2019), and Matter of Miranda‑Cordiero, 27 I&N Dec. 551 (BIA 2019), reaffirmed.
Perhaps, contrary to the BIA and some Circuits (both with judges who haven’t had to practice immigration law), Congress had a reason for specifying the contents of a unitary “Notice to Appear” by statute.
Let’s apply that thought in the “real world” rather than the “ivory tower universe” in which most appellate judges exist. In this case, the respondent was personally served with the defective Notice to Appear (“NTA”). Had that notice been legally sufficient under the statute, the respondent would have had critical information — the date, time and place of her upcoming hearing — in her hand.
Nearly two years later (gives you a clue about the “disorder in the Immigration Courts”), EOIR finally got around to correcting the defect by sending her “the missing piece” of the statutorily required unified notice by regular U.S. Mail. It was to the “address provided by the respondent” almost two years earlier. (Notably, the NTA gave the respondent only three weeks advance notice, although EOIR took almost two years to notify her of this date.)
Anybody out there have problems with USPS delivery? I get my neighbors’ mail — sometimes things that look like official communications or financial information — on a fairly regular basis. And, I’ll bet the mail service in our neighborhood is better than that in many of the neighborhoods where recently arrived migrants reside.
Also, we know most of our neighbors and insure that the mail is promptly taken to the correct address — even if that means us “walking it over” and knocking on the door. Think that happens in more “transient” neighborhoods?
Think that there might, just might, also be problems with “regular mail” sent by EOIR? It’s a totally dysfunctional agency suffering from the chaos of a 1.6 million case backlog, no effective automation, no competent leadership, lack of accountability, and a demoralized, underpaid, overwhelmed, and under-appreciated clerical staff! It’s a culture where “good enough for Government work” — basically the BIA approach in this precedent — has been normalized and institutionalized.
In private practice, we used to get notices from the INS of unrelated cases represented by other attorneys stuffed in the same envelope with our firm’s notices. Think today’s EOIR operates better than yesterday’s INS? I wouldn’t “bet the farm” on that!
Also, let’s think about the “address given by the respondent.” The NTA directs the respondent to file any changes of address with EOIR. But, if DHS hasn’t “filed” the NTA with EOIR, it won’t be entered into the EOIR system.
Moreover, even when DHS has supposedly “filed” the NTA with EOIR, that doesn’t mean that it has been manually entered into the EOIR system by the overwhelmed clerks. And, it doesn’t mean that the manual data entry is accurate!
Without prompt entry of accurate information, the later EOIR notice has a good chance of misdelivery. Also, if the respondent duly files a change of address for a case that hasn’t been correctly entered into the EOIR system, that change of address won’t get linked up with the case file. Indeed, stacks of unfiled change of address forms waiting to be filed were a staple of Arlington and other Immigration Courts.
Given that both the Trump and Biden Administrations have allowed ICE to just randomly toss hundreds of thousands of “low priority cases” or cases that could be resolved within DHS into Immigration Court, this problem has only gotten worse under Garland, as shown by the dramatic increase in the EOIR backlog during his “What Me Worry” tenure.
Garland’s “strategy” of allowing Trump/Miller “plants” and holdovers continue to run the Immigration Courts into the ground hasn’t worked, as backlogs grow exponentially and his system continues to careen further out of control! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Once upon a time, the Arlington Immigration Court was operating without a permanent Court Administrator. During that period, boxes of NTAs brought over by DHS were simply “warehoused” in the Court Administrator’s vacant office because the overwhelmed staff couldn’t keep up with data entry, given the other (often mindless) “priorities” imposed by the “Aimless Docket Reshuffllers” at Headquarters and the DOJ. There must have been hundreds of NTAs sitting there unentered into the EOIR manual system. Essentially they were “lost in space.”
At one time, EOIR had established an “interactive scheduling system” that allotted a certain number of specific “nondetained Master slots” weekly to ICE and to the Asylum Office on each IJs docket. This insured that the respondents received real hearing dates on the NTA and reduced the burden on court staff to schedule initial Masters.
Additionally, and importantly, it gave EOIR control over their dockets. ICE couldn’t “flood” dockets beyond the Individual Judge Master Calendar time actually available in each court.
While I had been “exiled from the Tower” by the time this sensible system was abandoned, my impression is that it was the result of pressure from DHS Enforcement and DOJ politicos to create “new priorities” or conduct mass enforcement operations far in excess of EOIR’s capacity to actually schedule and fairly and professionally decide cases. Gradually, during my tenure, the Master Calendar system got out of control and the court’s storage areas were literally filled with “stockpiled” cases awaiting scheduling notices.
Any semblance of discipline, order, and control by individual IJs over dockets quickly disappeared as dockets were “reshuffled” to meet the agendas of political officials at DHS and EOIR. On my final day on the bench, June 30, 2016, I was setting “second Masters” for a year later and setting Individual Merits hearings for Dec. 2022 and Jan. 2023. My colleague on the non-detained docket was even “further out.”
Out of six IJs then available, only two of us were assigned to the non-detained docket that comprised the vast majority of the Arlington Court’s work. Our other four colleagues were assigned full-time to “other priorities” designated by “Headquarters” and DOJ politicos, largely at the behest of DHS Enforcement.
Maybe Congress actually had better insights into the chronic administrative problems at EOIR than appellate judges at the BIA and the Circuits who attempt to “paper over” the problems and shift the consequences of the Government’s intentionally poor performance to hapless respondents — who have no control over the broken system. But, then, if you regularly hire appellate judges who have never practiced immigration law — even though it’s perhaps the largest and certainly the most controversial segment of Federal Civil litigation docket — you’re not likely to get either practical decisions or fair legal solutions.
The BIA and EOIR have already been “dinged” twice by the Supremes for trying to cover up the conscious choice by DHS and EOIR not to comply with the statutory requirements for an NTA. Both of those incorrect BIA decisions have caused unjust results and created additional, preventable backlog havoc by requiring reopening and redoing of tens of thousands of cases decided under legally wrong BIA precedents! If Garland’s BIA “gets the trifecta” — going down for the third time before the Supremes — the disorder, backlog, and Aimless Docket Reshuffling (one of Garland’s specialties) will be exponentially increased— again!
EOIR’s and DHS’s choice to attempt to “sidestep” clear Congressional statutory requirements and Supreme Court decisions, to “cover up” the predictable consequences of lawless Government practices has dramatic “real life effects.” That’s why Garland’s choice not to replace the BIA and EOIR administrators with “pros” who have practiced before the courts, know the law, and understand the problems is so devastating to our justice system — at all levels!
As my esteemed colleague “Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table said after receiving the LAPARA decision from Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis: “Seriously.I feel like I’ve heard this song before . . . .”
Of course we have! And it’s going to continue until someone: 1) takes this mess away from DOJ; or 2) forces Garland to pay attention, remove the incompetents and Trump/Miller “plants” at EOIR, and bring in a high-level team of recognized experts in immigration, human rights, and administration empowered to stop the bleeding, get rid of the “problem children,” and begin the long overdue work of fixing this incredible mess!
Every year, on the third Monday in January, America hosts a Sadie Hawkins-style role-reversal where the entire country pretends to celebrate a man whose achievements and values they spent the previous 364 days ignoring, demonizing and trying to dismantle. Today, your favorite vote suppressors will take a brief respite from disenfranchising Black voters, denying history and increasing inequality to celebrate a real American hero.
That’s right, it’s MLK Day!
You might think it’s a little disrespectful to refer to a great American hero by his initials but, in this specific case, it’s perfectly fine. The actual Martin Luther King Jr who lived and breathed is not the man most people will be honoring today because that Martin Luther King is dead and gone. No, the man upon whom they will heap their performative praise with social media virtue-signaling is MLK, a caricature of a man whose likeness has been made palatable for white consumption. Like BLM, CRT and USA, the people who King fought against have now managed to flatten a three-dimensional symbol to a three-letter, chant-worthy phrase worthy of demonization or deification.
. . . .
Although, in death, he became one of the most revered figures in US history, for the entirety of the 39 years that King lived and breathed, there wasn’t a single day when the majority of white Americans approved of him. In 1966, Gallup measured his approval rating at 32% positive and 63% negative. That same year, a December Harris poll found that 50% of whites felt King was “hurting the negro cause of civil rights” while only 36% felt he was helping. By the time he died in 1968, three out of four white Americans disapproved of him. In the wake of his assassination, 31% of the country felt that he “brought it on himself”.
One does not have to reach back into the historical archives to explain why King was so despised. The sentiments that made him a villain are still prevalent in America today. When he was alive, King was a walking, talking example of everything this country despises about the quest for Black liberation. He railed against police brutality. He reminded the country of its racist past. He scolded the powers that be for income inequality and systemic racism. Not only did he condemn the openly racist opponents of equality, he reminded the legions of whites who were willing to sit idly by while their fellow countrymen were oppressed that they were also oppressors. “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it,” King said. “He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”
. . . .
“The first thing I would like to mention is that there must be a recognition on the part of everybody in this nation that America is still a racist country,” said King days before a white supremacist put a bullet in his face. “Now however unpleasant that sounds, it is the truth. And we will never solve the problem of racism until there is a recognition of the fact that racism still stands at the center of so much of our nation and we must see racism for what it is.”
See how many times someone mentions that quote today.
Oh, wait … King made that speech at Grosse Pointe High School, where Michigan’s Republican-controlled House of Representatives recently passed an anti-CRT bill making it illegal to teach that the “United States is a fundamentally racist country”.
Never mind.
. . . .
**********************
Read the full article at the link.
Like the figure of Christ in Dostoyevsky’s The Grand Inquisitor, if Dr. King returned to earth today he would be imprisoned, interrogated, condemned and permanently banished by the corrupt and cowardly right-wing pols, religious bigots, disingenuous judges, pundits, and others who falsely claim to be honoring his memory and vision of racial equality!
So what should we tell our students? Many are dispirited and cynical because, as far into the future as they can see, this court appears likely to do more harm than good to democracy.
First, we shouldn’t hide the reality that judicial decisions often depend on who is on the bench. That has never been more true because the entrenched partisan Senate confirmation process now guarantees that a Supreme Court nominee will be chosen to carry out political and ideological aims. For the first time in American history, the ideology of the justices precisely corresponds to the political party of the president who appointed them. All six conservatives were appointed by Republican presidents and all three liberals were appointed by Democrats.
Until recently, there were moderate liberals, such as John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter, appointed by Republicans, and there were moderate conservatives, such as Byron White and Felix Frankfurter, who had been appointed by Democrats. Trump picked three of the most ideologically conservative judges on the federal bench.
If students are to one day become effective litigators on constitutional rights, they will need to understand the ideologies of the justices interpreting the law. In the past, we certainly discussed the ideology of the justices with our students, but we must focus on it far more now as the ideological differences between the Republican-appointed justices and judges and those appointed by Democratic presidents are greater than they have ever been.
Second, we must remind students that there have been other bleak times in constitutional law when rights were contracted. From the 1890s until 1936, a conservative Supreme Court struck down over 200 progressive federal, state and local laws protecting workers and consumers. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the court refused to stand up to the hysteria of McCarthyism. The current court will not last forever, though it may feel like that to them.
Third, we should direct focus on other avenues for change. Students need to look more to state courts and legislatures, at least in some parts of the country, as a way to advance liberty and equality. For instance, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law known as the “Roe Act,” protecting a woman’s right to abortion under state law, no matter what the Supreme Court decides. We need to teach our students how to use the power of local governments to protect fair housing, public education and public health.
Fourth, we must encourage them to look at the sweep of history. In the early 1960s, almost half the states had Jim Crow segregation laws, there were few women going to law school, and every state had a law criminally prohibiting same-sex sexual activity. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was right when he said that the arc of the moral universe is long and it bends toward justice — if we work for it.
There really are just two choices: Give up or fight harder, even if there will be a lot of losses along the way. If we can instill in students a desire to defend justice, even if victory is distant, it will be a good semester, no matter what the Supreme Court decides.
Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law and a contributing writer to Opinion. Jeffrey Abramson is professor of law and government at the University of Texas at Austin.
*************************
Read the full article at the above link.
Sometimes, the best you can do is save as many lives as you can, one at a time. Eventually, it adds up. Also, as the article suggests, it’s critical to get involved and speak out on local political issues. That’s where the fascist far-right has made huge inroads.
The Supreme Court Had No Legal Reason to Block Biden’s Workplace Vaccine Rules
So it made one up.
JANUARY 13 2022 10:34 PM
The Supreme Court significantly hobbled—but did not obliterate—President Joe Biden’s efforts to protect Americans from COVID in the face of congressional inaction. By a 6–3 vote, the justices blocked his vaccinate-or-test mandate for large employers, accusing the administration of exceeding its authority. But by a 5–4 vote, the court upheld the administration’s vaccine mandate for health care workers, a decision that will compel more than 10 million people to get the jab. This split double header is a crushing defeat for Biden’s efforts to curb the pandemic by protecting American workers from catching COVID in the workplace. SCOTUS’ decision is not, however, a knockout blow to the administrative state. The Republican-appointed justices may yet enfeeble the executive branch’s ability to implement federal law. But a majority of them declined to seize on these cases as their vehicle.
By far the more important case, NFIB v. Department of Labor involves an “emergency temporary standard” issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. This rule required employers with 100 or more workers to give their staff a choice: either get the COVID-19 vaccine or test weekly and mask in the office. The policy would have covered roughly 84 million people. To justify this mandate, OSHA drew on a federal law that allows the agency to protect employees from a “grave danger” resulting from “physically harmful” “agents” or “new hazards.” A coalition of red states filed a lawsuit to halt OSHA’s mandate, and by a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court took their side.
SCOTUS’ unsigned majority opinion rests on several dubious claims. The court declared that “we expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.” So even though COVID is undoubtedly a “grave danger” and a “new hazard” to workers, this broad language is not enough, because it does not “plainly authorize” the mandate. Why not? The majority invented a distinction between hazards that occur solely in the workplace and hazards that occur in and out of the workplace. Because the pandemic exists outside the workplace, it is not the kind of “grave danger” envisioned by the statute, and “falls outside OSHA’s sphere of expertise.” The majority also raised the “anti-novelty principle,” stating: “It is telling that OSHA, in its half century of existence, has never before adopted a broad public health regulation of this kind.”
Notice something unusual about this analysis? The dissenters certainly did: It is utterly untethered to the plain text of the law, which obviously encompasses OSHA’s rule. In a rare joint dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan shredded this anti-textual approach to statutory interpretation. By dismantling OSHA’s authority over hazards found in and out of the workplace, they wrote, the majority imposed “a limit found no place in the governing statute.” This limit is not even supported by history: The agency has long regulated risks “beyond the workplace walls,” including fires, excessive noise, unsafe drinking water, and faulty electrical installations. And if the vaccinate-or-test policy is unprecedented, that is because it is in response to an unprecedented event: the deadliest pandemic in American history.
If that weren’t enough, OSHA put forth uncontested evidence that COVID–19 “poses special risks in most workplaces, across the country and across industries.” The virus “spreads more widely in workplaces than in other venues because more people spend more time together there,” the dissenters noted. OSHA “backed up its conclusions with hundreds of reports of workplace COVID– 19 outbreaks.” And it issued a rule designed to protect workers from these kinds of superspreader events. By “overturning that action,” the dissenters wrote, the majority “substitutes judicial diktat for reasoned policymaking.”
. . . .
**************
Read the complete article at the link.
Immigration practitioners are used to result-oriented, anti-immigrant, racially, ethnically, and religiously driven results from Federal Judges. After all, fewer than four years ago a somewhat different Supremes’ right-wing majority “green-lighted” Trump’s bogus invidious, unprecedented“Muslim ban” by accepting clearly pretextual and contrived rationales that actually wererefuted by the lower court records.
Here, with the facts, science, and history, as well as the statute supporting the Biden Administration’s reasonable program, the GOP Justices simply invented a reason to bar Biden from taking action to protect our health and safety. Talk about a double standard!
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.
IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 10, 2022
Contacts:
Immigrant Legal Defense
Ilyce Shugall, ilyce@ild.org, (415) 758-3765
Siobhan Waldron, siobhan@ild.org, (510) 479-0972
Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, The University of Chicago Law School Nicole Hallett, nhallett@uchicago.edu, (203) 910-1980
Omar Ameen Files Federal Lawsuit Seeking His Release
After the U.S. Government Fails Once Again to Prove Any Connection to Terrorism
San Francisco, CA. Immigrant Legal Defense and the University of Chicago Immigrants’ Rights Clinic have filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Omar Ameen seeking his immediate release from immigration custody. Mr. Ameen has been held by the U.S. government for over three years based on false allegations that he was involved in terrorism in Iraq before he arrived in the United States as a refugee. Multiple courts have now rejected those allegations. The petition alleges that his continued detention in these circumstances violates the Due Process Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
After an investigation initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Iraqi government issued a warrant for his arrest in connection with the 2014 murder of a police officer in Rawa, Iraq. Mr. Ameen was subsequently arrested by U.S. authorities in August 2018 and placed in extradition proceedings, with the government arguing that not only was Omar responsible for the 2014 murder, but that he also occupied a leadership position in ISIS. After two and a half years of fighting his extradition, the federal magistrate judge found that the warrant was not supported by probable cause because Mr. Ameen had been in Turkey, not Iraq, at the time of the murder. He further found that there was no evidence that Mr. Ameen was an ISIS leader and ordered his immediate release.
Instead of releasing him or charging him with a crime, DHS took Mr. Ameen into immigration custody, and placed him in removal proceedings before the Department of Justice (DOJ). DHS abandoned the murder claim, but otherwise made the same terrorism allegations against Mr. Ameen in immigration court that had been made – and rejected – in the extradition proceedings. After months of proceedings, the immigration judge found that the government had not proved that Mr. Ameen had any involvement with terrorism, yet still denied him bond while he seeks relief from deportation. Mr. Ameen continues to fight for his freedom, to remain in the United States, and to clear his name.
“It is a fundamental principle that the government cannot detain someone based on unsubstantiated rumors and unproven accusations,” said Ilyce Shugall, an attorney with Immigration Legal Defense (ILD) and a member of Mr. Ameen’s legal team. “The government keeps losing, yet continues to believe it can detain Omar indefinitely without cause. The Constitution does not allow such a cavalier denial of individual liberty.”
“Omar’s bond request was denied by the same agency – the Department of Justice – that has maliciously targeted for him years. Omar deserves a fair hearing in federal court,” said Siobhan Waldron, another ILD attorney on Mr. Ameen’s legal team.
“The government seems to think that it can do whatever it wants as long as it invokes the word ‘terrorism,’” said Nicole Hallett, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School, “Rather than admit it was wrong about Omar, the government will go to extraordinary measures to keep him locked up. We are asking the federal court to put a stop to this abuse of power.”
###
Immigrant Legal Defense’s mission is to promote justice through the provision of legal representation to underserved immigrant communities.
The Immigrants’ Rights Clinic is a clinical program of the University of Chicago Law School and provides representation to immigrants in Chicago and throughout the country.
****************
Unfortunately, “cavalier denial of individual liberty” largely describes the daily operations of Garland’s dysfunctional and hopelessly backlogged “wholly owned Immigration Courts” — where due process, scholarship, quality, and efficiency are afterthoughts, at best. “Malicious targeting” — that’s a Stephen Miller specialty shamelessly carried forth by Garland in too many instances! Miller must be gratified, and not a little amazed, to find that the guy Dem progressives and human rights advocates thought would be leading the charge to undo Miller’s White Nationalist, scofflaw attack on migrants and people of color would instead be proudly “carrying his water” for him.
To punctuate my point, today Garland’s Solicitor General will follow in the disgraceful footsteps of predecessors in both GOP and Dem Administrations. Essentially (that is, stripped of its disingenuous legal gobbledygook), the SG will argue that individuals, imprisoned without conviction, struggling to vindicate their rights before Garland’s broken, backlogged, and notoriously pro-Government, anti-immigrant Immigration Courts, renowned for their sloppiness and bad judging, are not really “persons” under the Constitution and therefore can be arbitrarily imprisoned indefinitely, in conditions that are often worse than those for convicted felons, without any individualized rationale and without recourse to “real” courts (e.g., Article III courts not directly controlled by the DOJ).
“The right-wing majority on the Supreme Court seems to be planning to eliminate the only way a lot of people in immigration detention can challenge their imprisonment,” appellate public defender Sam Feldman commented in a quote-tweet. “People would still be held illegally, but no court could do anything about it.”
One might assume that our nation’s highest Court would unanimously make short-shrift of the SG’s scofflaw arguments and send her packing. After all, that’s what several lower courts have done! But, most experts predict the exactly opposite result from a Supremes’ majority firmly committed to “Dred Scottification” — that is de-humanization and de-personification” — of people of color and migrants under the Constitution.
It’s painfully obvious that Congress must create an independent Article I Immigration Court not beholden to the Executive Branch. But, don’t hold your breath, given the current political gridlock in Washington. It’s equally clear that the Article IIIs, from the Supremes down, have “swallowed the whistle” by not striking down this blatantly unconstitutional system, thereby forcing Congress to take corrective action to bring the system into line with our Constitution.
In the meantime, Garland could bring in better-qualified expert judges, reform procedures, and appoint competent professional administrators who would institutionalize fairness, efficiency, and independence that would help transition the Immigration Courts to a new structure outside the DOJ. He could stop echoing Stephen Miller in litigation.
He could have replaced the architects of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and exponentially growing back logs with practical scholars and progressive experts who could reduce backlogs and establish order without violating human or legal rights of individuals. He could have set a “new tone” by publicly insisting that all coming before his Immigration Courts be treated fairly, with respect, dignity, and professionalism.
But, instead, Garland has stubbornly eschewed the recommendations of immigration and human rights experts while allowing and even defending the trashing of the rule of law at the border and elsewhere where migrants are concerned. He’s also done it with many questionably qualified “holdover” judges and administrators appointed by Sessions and Barr because of their perceived willingness, or in some cases downright enthusiasm, to stomp on the legal and human rights of asylum seekers and other migrants.
It’s curious conduct from a guy who once was only “one Mitch McConnell away” from a seat on the Supremes! I guess the “due process” Garland got from McConnell and his GOP colleagues is all that he thinks migrants and other “non-persons” of color get in his wholly-owned “courts.”
Good luck to our Round Table colleague, Judge Ilyce Shugall, and her great team, on this litigation! Obviously, the wrong folks are on the Federal Bench — at all levels of our broken and floundering system.
Interestingly, Judge Shugall was once an Immigration Judge until forced to prematurely resign, as a matter of conscience, by the lawless anti-immigrant policies of the Trump Administration carried out through its DOJ. As in many cases, the Government’s loss is the Round Table’s gain!🛡⚔️
Hon. Dana Leigh Marks U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.) One of the most influential, outspoken, and dynamic Federal Judges of the past half-century enters the next phase of her illustrious career, as a caregiver for her granddaughter and a “fighting knightess” of the Round Table, with typical optimism. “Decades of dealing with DOJ and EOIR management has given me the best possible toolbox to meet any challenges on the road ahead,” says “NanaDana.”
😎🇺🇸🗽⚖️👩⚖️ FLASH: JUDICIAL MAVEN HON. DANA LEIGH MARKS RETIRES, JOINS ROUND TABLE! 🛡⚔️ — “Founding Mother” Of U.S. Asylum Law Successfully Argued INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca @ Supremes, Led Immigration Judges’ Association, Spearheaded “Article I”Movement For Judicial Independence, Saved Thousands of Lives Over Career OnBench Spanning More Than Three Decades!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
Jan. 9, 2022
Judge Dana Leigh Marks, one of America’s leading “applied scholars” and human rights jurists, joined the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges. Marks retired from the San Francisco Immigration Court on December 31, 2021, following an extraordinary nearly 35-year career on the bench. Round Table spokesperson Judge Jeffrey S. Chase announced Marks’s move in an e-mail yesterday to the group’s more than 50 members.
In addition to her “number one retirement priority” — helping care for her granddaughter — Marks told Courtside that she “looks forward to continuing the fight for Article I and due process for all in America, now without the disclaimers that DOJ requires.” It’s a mission and a sentiment shared by the group.
Long time colleague and fellow past president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”), Judge John Gossart enthusiastically welcomed and recognized Marks’s fearless advocacy “for due process, fundamental fairness, the right to be heard, and an Article 1 Court.”
Other Round Table judges greeted their newest member with an avalanche of praise, appreciation, admiration, and love for Marks’s intellectual prowess, courage under pressure, and embodiment of the one-time vision of making the U.S. Immigration Courts “the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Over the last several decades, many experts say that noble vision was cashiered by Department of Justice (“DOJ”) politicos in favor of the “go along to get along” and “good enough for government work” aura that infects today’s broken and dysfunctional Immigration Court system. Those courts, now running an astounding, largely self-created backlog in excess of 1.5 million cases, are inappropriately located within the byzantine, politicized bureaucracy of a DOJ still reeling from four years of grotesque mismanagement and misdirection by the Trump group.
Marks graduated from Cal Berkeley in 1974 and received her J.D. from Hastings Law in 1977. She worked for almost ten years as an immigration lawyer in private practice, and was an active leader in AILA’s Northern California chapter during that time. In 1986, as a partner with Simmons & Ungar, then San Francisco’s premier immigration law specialty firm, Marks successfully argued the landmark case, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 US 421 (1987).
There, the Supreme Court rejected the Government’s argument that asylum seekers must establish that their future persecution is “more likely than not” to happen. Instead, the Court adopted the much more generous international standard of a “well founded fear” of persecution. The Court thereby recognized that asylum could be granted where the fear was objectively reasonable, even if it were significantly less than “probable.”
Some also consider this to be the “high water mark” of the Court’s positive use of international law concepts in a human rights case involving immigration. Despite considerable internal resistance to fairly applying the more generous legal standard, Cardoza has undoubtedly saved the lives of tens of thousands of refugees and their families over the past three and one-half decades.
Shortly after submitting the brief (co-authored with Bill Ong Hing, Kip Steinberg and Susan Lydon), but prior to her Cardoza argument, Marks was selected for a judgeship by then Chief Immigration Judge, the late William R. Robie. Then Attorney General Ed Meese adopted Robie’s recommendation, and Marks was sworn in as a U.S. Immigration Judge for San Francisco in January, 1987, two months after the oral argument and two months prior to the decision being issued by the Court.
During her distinguished career on the immigration bench, Marks has been an outspoken fighter for professional treatment of her fellow Immigration Judges, for true judicial independence in the Immigration Courts, and for fair, humane, professional treatment of those coming before the courts. She served on a number of occasions as the President and Executive Vice President of the NAIJ, sometimes “swapping” leadership positions with her close friend Judge Denise Slavin, also President Emerita of NAIJ and now a “fearless fighting knightess” of the Round Table.
Marks and Slavin helped battle two DOJ attempts to “decertify” the NAIJ and thus silence the powerful voices that often exposed severe problems in the administration of the Immigration Courts. Indeed, Marks’s determination to speak “truth to power,” her outsized personality, and her willingness to “level” with the media often put her at odds with “handlers” in the court’s bloated bureaucracy and their DOJ overlords.
The latter often sought to divert the Immigration Courts from their due process mission to focus instead on “deterrence” of asylum seekers and fulfilling each Administration’s goals for immigration enforcement. Among other things, this led to a backlog-building phenomenon known as “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.”
In her writings, speeches, and interviews, Marks decried these glaring conflicts of interest and abuses of normal judicial ethics, not to mention common sense and human decency. She tirelessly advocates that the United States adhere more closely to international standards governing refugees and asylees, which was the clearly expressed legislative intent when the Refugee Act of 1980 was enacted.
Summing up her new life after Immigration Court, Marks said “I will enjoy my new day job of caring for my granddaughter, but will continue my hobby of telling truth about EOIR [the bureaucratic acronym for Immigration Courts] through NAIJ and the Roundtable. I am proud to be in such good company!” The feeling is mutual! Due process forever!
So, what’s the “dollar value” of brown-skinned human lives to Biden, Harris, & Garland? We’re about to find out! EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
When the Trump administration wrenched migrant babies, toddlers and tweens from their parents as a means of frightening away prospective asylum seekers, it was guilty of emotionally torturing innocent children. Americans of every political leaning expressed revulsion toward the policy implemented in 2018, especially when it became clear that the government had kept no clear records linking parents with their children — in other words, no ready means to reunite the families.
President Biden, as a candidate and also once in office, made clear his own disgust at the so-called zero-tolerance policy, calling it “criminal.” He said, correctly, that it “violates every notion of who we are as a nation.”
Now the president, having explicitly endorsed government compensation that would address the suffering of separated migrant family members, has apparently had a change of heart — or political calculation. In mid-December, the Justice Department abruptly broke off negotiations aimed at a financial settlement with hundreds of affected families. Having condemned a policy that traumatized children and their parents, Mr. Biden now leads an administration fighting in court to deny recompense to those same families.
The government has no means of alleviating the trauma inflicted by the previous president’s egregious treatment of those families. That is particularly true as regards the children, whose torment has been described and documented by medical professionals, advocates and journalists. The babies and toddlers who didn’t recognize their own mothers when they were finally reunited; the depression; the fear of further separations, even brief ones — the human aftershocks of Donald Trump’s heartlessness will linger for years, and for lifetimes in some cases.
The administration compounds the hurt by breaking off negotiations on compensating victims. The government must be held accountable; compensation is the most potent and credible vehicle for achieving that.
Granted, there may be a political price to pay. Republicans had a field day blasting the White House after media reports this fall suggested the government might pay $450,000 to separated family members — a settlement that could amount to $1 billion if applied to the several thousand affected migrants. Mr. Biden, apparently unaware of the status of negotiations at that time, said the reports, first published in the Wall Street Journal, were “garbage.” He later backed away from that remark, saying he did not know how much money would be suitable but that some amount was certainly due.
Now, it seems, all bets are off. In the absence of a negotiated settlement, the government would enter into what would likely be years of costly litigation, in which Mr. Biden’s Justice Department would be in the awkward position of defending a policy that Mr. Biden himself — and most Americans — have condemned as evil. There is no predicting how individual judges or juries might react to documented accounts of harm done to children. No one should be surprised if some were to award enormous damages — conceivably in amounts that exceed the $450,000 contemplated in the now-stalled negotiations.
By walking away from the bargaining table, Mr. Biden has broken an explicit, repeated promise. Whatever the political calculus behind that decision, it is morally indefensible.
**********************
Garland fails to stand up for the rights of families of color — again. At the same time, he ties up resources on a frivolous DOJ defense of the indefensible!
“Replacement theory,” White Nationalism, and racism always have been and remain at the core of the GOP’s anti-democracy insurrection. It’s no coincidence that Trump’s plans to de-stabilize American democracy began with cowardly attacks on vulnerable migrants (enabled by a failed Supremes) and culminated in open insurrection.
The dots aren’t that hard to connect. But, Garland doesn’t seem to be able to do it!
If Garland can’t handle the “low hanging fruit” — like settling these cases and creating a progressive judiciary at EOIR who will stand upfor the rights of all persons while using expertise and “practical scholarship” to replace dysfunction with efficiency, his pledge to hold the January insurrectionists and their leaders accountable rings hollow!
For those who read the LA Times, there was a “spot on” letter to the editors today accurately characterizing Garland as the “Attorney General for different era.”
As I’ve noted before, this is NOT Ed Levi’s, Griffin Bell’s, or Ben Civiletti’s DOJ. It isn’t even Janet Reno’s DOJ. (I ought to know, as I worked under each of the foregoing.)
It’s an organization that has become increasingly politicized over the last two decades (as it was during Watergate), and that allowed itself to be weaponized by Trump’s White Nationalist regime. EOIR, Executive Orders, and immigration litigation were perhaps the most obvious, but by no means the only, examples.
KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. This class action presents a due process challenge to the bond procedures used to detain noncitizens during the pendency of removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the discretionary immigration detention provision. In light of our recent decision in Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021), we affirm the district court’s declaration that noncitizens “detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) are entitled to receive a bond hearing at which the Government must prove the alien is either dangerous by clear and convincing evidence or a risk of flight by a preponderance of the evidence.” Brito v. Barr, 415 F. Supp. 3d 258, 271 (D. Mass. 2019). We conclude, however, that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief in favor of the class, and we otherwise vacate the district court’s declaration as advisory. Our reasoning follows.
And, he didn’t disappoint, at least on that score!
No sooner was the ink dry on my last post, than Ol’ Merrick gave me a classic example of why come “panic time” next Fall, when the Dem bigwigs come knocking on the door asking their “old reliable” progressive base to open their pocketbooks and get out the vote, they might find that the windows are dark and nobody’s home! If you don’t exist for the first 19 months of a Dem Administration, it’s hard to see why you wouldn’t be “on vacation” for the next three!
If Dems want to continue as a viable force in American politics, at some point they will need leaders who recognize the difference between “political strategies” and “values.” Standing up for the human and due process rights immigrants and all other “persons” in the U.S. is the latter, not the former!
To reiterate Garland’s position in this and related cases:
No due process for immigrants;
Keep the “New American Gulag” full of non-dangerous individuals;
Promote wasteful litigation, inconsistency, and chaos in my wholly-owed Immigration Courts that continue to operate as if “Gauleiter Stephen” were still calling the shots, and clutter the Article IIIs with my poor work product.
Nice touch! (Although, to be fair, it’s the same regressive, anti-due process, racially tinged position taken by both the Obama Administration and the Trump regime.)
Seems like an Administration that claims to be litigating, to date not very successfully (surprised?), to vindicate the voting rights and civil rights of African-Americans, Latinos, and other minorities might want to rethink arguing for the “Dred Scottification” of migrants, primarily persons of color. Maybe, some right-wing Federal Judge will start citing Garland back to Garland to say that “all persons aren’t really persons.” Sounds like something Rudy would say on a Sunday talk show (except that nobody invites him any more).
“Let’s see, if ‘humans’ are ‘persons,’ and ‘all persons’ have Constitutional rights to due process, then immigrants must not be ‘humans!’ Or, maybe we should argue that they are only 3/5 of a ‘person’ with half the rights! Chief Justice Taney would be. proud of me!” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
And, if you are wondering what the 34 pages of opaque legal gobbledygook and all out assault on logic and the English language in the majority opinion means, I’ll simplify it.
“We think it’s reasonable and appropriate that you plaintiffs who admittedly have had your Constitutional rights systematically violated by your litigation opponent should be required to seek redress on a case-by-case basis before a dysfunctional ‘court’ wholly-owned, staffed, and operated by your opponent located within a Government bureaucracy that has been litigating against your Constitutional rights over three Administrations!”
There, you have it! 34 pages of intentionally impenetrable “judgespeak,” legalese, and doublespeak condensed to one sentence of fewer than 65 words!
Anybody (besides me) think that maybe, just maybe, there could be a Constitutional problem with “courts” owned and operated by a litigating party? Certainly seems above Garland’s pay grade to trifle with such trivialities, even when human lives and freedom are on the line.
Nope, better to just regurgitate the “Miller Lite” positions from the “restrictionists’ playbook” left behind by your Trumpy predecessors. And, for a good measure, why not even use some of their lawyers to argue them? But, strangely, those folks don’t seem to be very convincing when, on rare occasions, they are sent out to argue for more humane and reasonable treatment of immigrants! Perhaps their hearts, and heads, just aren’t in it.
My congrats to Circuit Judge Lipez (concurring and dissenting), the only one to actually get this one right and be able to explain it in understandable terms. When you have the right answer, you don’t have to obfuscate as much to cover up your fuzzy thinking (or lack thereof).
Gotta love it! Garland runs an unconstitutional bond system that infringes on individuals’ right to freedom, while improperly shoving those not accused of crimes into his “New American Gulag.” Yet, the panel manages to talk itself out of granting effective relief! Truly remarkable!
If the judges in the majority had actually practiced before the Immigration Courts they might know:
1) Bond cases are hard to appeal because the IJ isn’t required to provide a final rationale for his or her decision until after an appeal has been taken;
2) By regulation, bond hearings aren’t even required to be “on the record” (although many of us chose to nevertheless put them on the record for the convenience and protection all concerned);
3) The BIA has a “general practice” of not adjudicating bond appeals by respondents until after the detained merits hearing has taken place, whereupon the BIA finds the bond appeal to be “moot;”
4) OIL often encourages DHS to release individuals who sue in District Court to moot the case.
I’m sure that Garland’s BIA which has, on occasion, blown off the Supremes and declined to follow Circuit Court orders on remand, will promptly fashion a very well-reasoned progressive precedent vindicating respondents’ rights.
Then again, maybe they will just take whatever position that their “boss” Garland wants to litigate in behalf of his “partners” at DHS Enforcement.
What do you think Garland’s personally owned and operated courts will do?
Better Judges for a Better America —starting with the BIA! And, while you’re at it, how about throwing in an Attorney General committed to vindicating the legal and human rights of all persons!
So, NDPA, take up, the cudgel of justice and flood Garland’s courts and the Article IIIs with as many individual “exhaustion of remedies” cases as it takes to obtain justice or grind Garland’s corrupt system to a halt!
Garland would “rather fight than get it right.” So, take advantage of his limited litigation skills, tunnel vision, and the mediocre talent he employs to do his bidding. Take the fight to him, as he wishes!
Continually pummeling him in court is apparently the only way to get Garland to pay attention to progressives!
Additionally, you should, of course, keep applying for Immigration Judgeships, BIA Judgeships, Asylum Officer positions, and other key jobs where you can make a difference and save some lives.
Garland’s tone-deaf system must be attacked from all angles until it collapses under its own weight. An Attorney General who obviously would like to put migrants, their humanity, their rights, and YOU, their advocates, “out of sight, out of mind” so he can think great thoughts about the “really important things in life,” is eventually going to find that those he ignores and condemns without fair trial will be the ONLY thing on his plate and occupying his time!
When leadership lacks the vision, courage, and skills necessary to promote change, it falls to those at all levels of society and our justice system to assert the pressure and impetus for that essential change to take place! Keep pushing and pressing until “the powers that be” can’t ignore and marginalize you any more!
Vanita Gupta, Lucas Guttentag, and Kristin Clarke, what on earth do you do with yourselves all day long, now that you have removed yourselves from the battle for civil rights, equal justice,and racial justice in America? I guess there are lots of papers to push and meaningless meetings to attend in Garland’s broken DOJ bureaucracy.
I’d say things haven’t changed much. But, I actually think they have gotten measurably worse since “my days” at the DOJ. And, that’s saying a lot!
Biden promised to establish a fair, orderly, and humane immigration system. Has he done it?
Paul Schmidt, a former chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals, doesn’t think so. He claims that Biden could have established due process and the rule of law at the border and expanded refugee programs in potential sending countries but he didn’t, “preferring instead to use modified versions of ‘proven to fail deterrence-only programs’ administered largely by Trump-era holdovers and other bureaucrats insensitive to the rights, needs, and multiple motivations of asylum seekers.”
Predictably, nobody is pleased.
The problems Schmidt describes are not limited to the border and the treatment of asylum seekers. They are reflected in many of Biden’s other immigration measures too.
Nolan Rappaport for the Hill reports that Paul Schmidt, former chair of the Board of Immigration Appeals who now blogs at Immigration Courtside, does not think that President Biden has done enough on immigration. Schmidt claims that Biden could have established due process and the rule of law at the border and expanded refugee programs in potential sending countries but he didn’t, “preferring instead to use modified versions of ‘proven to fail deterrence-only programs’ administered largely by Trump-era holdovers and other bureaucrats insensitive to the rights, needs, and multiple motivations of asylum seekers.”
Thanks, guys! As I have told both of you, I really appreciate the huge contributions you have made to informing the public about this all-important, yet often misunderstood or “mythologized,” issue!
Following up on my last thought, I urge everyone to view this recent clip from “Face the Nation,” posted by Kevin on ImmigrationProf, in which reporter Ed O’Keefe succinctly and cogently explains how immigration is the “most underreported issue of 2021.” It’s fundamental to everything from COVID, to the economy, to voting rights, to racial justice, to climate change, to our position in the world.
And, I say that the absolute dysfunctional mess that Garland has presided over in hisbroken and jaw-droppingly backlogged Immigration Courts is the most widely ignored, misunderstood, mishandled, and under-appreciated part of this under-reporting!
As an example of how even “mainstream liberal progressive pundits” get it wrong by not focusing on the spectacular adverse effects of Garland’s botched handling of the Immigration Courts, check out this article by Mark Joseph Stern over at Slate. https://apple.news/AvmEJc5V0RXa8hCgKICcTOA
Overlooking Garland’s disastrous mis-handling of his “wholly owned” U.S. Immigration Courts and the unparalleled “missed opportunity” to put more brilliant progressive judges on the Federal Bench is an all too common “blind spot” for progressive pundits. Mark Joseph Stern Reporter, Slate
Stern does a “victory lap” over Biden’s 40 great Article III judicial appointments to the lower Federal Courts, closing with the astounding claim that: “Democrats are finally playing hardball with the courts.”
In truth, Dems are only belatedly starting to do what the GOP has been doing over four decades: Get your guys in the positions where they make a difference for better (Dems, in theory) or worse (GOP in practice).
Appointing a diverse, talented, progressive group of 40 out of 870 Article III Judges is an important, necessary, and long, long overdue start; but, it’s not going to make a cosmic difference overnight!
By contrast, there are about 550 Immigration Judges, the majority appointed by GOP restrictionist AGs, many with mediocre to totally inadequate credentials for the job. And, it shows in the consistently substandard performance and mistake-riddled, haphazard “jurisprudence” emanating from Garland’s EOIR.
The main qualifications for a number of these pedestrian to totally outrageous appointments appears to be willingness to carry out former GOP AGs’ restrictionist, nativist policies, or at least to adhere to the DOJ’s enforcement-oriented agenda, while ignoring, distinguishing, or downplaying the due process rights of migrants!
This is “complimented” by an appellate branch (the BIA) with about two dozen judges hand-selected or retained for notorious anti-immigrant records or willingness to “go along to get along” with the wishes of DHS Enforcement. The BIA turns out some truly horrible, almost invariably regressive, “precedents.” A number are so lacking in substance and coherent analysis that they are unceremoniously “stomped” by the Article IIIs despite limitations on judicial review and the travesty of so-called “Chevron deference” that serves as a grotesque example of Supremes-created “judicial task avoidance” by the Article IIIs.
From an informed Dem progressive perspective, it’s an infuriating, ongoing, unmitigated disaster! Only one BIA appellate judge, recently appointed “progressive practical scholar” Judge Andrea Saenz, would appear on any expert’s list of the “best and brightest” progressive legal minds in the field.
Unlike Article III Judges, who are life-tenured, EOIR Judges serve at the pleasure and discretion of the Attorney General and can be replaced and reassigned, including to non-quasi-judicial attorney positions, “at will.”
Starting with Attorney General John Ashcroft’s notorious “BIA Purge of ‘03,”GOP AGs haven’t hesitated to remove, transfer, “force out,” marginalize, demoralize, discourage from applying, or simply not select EOIR judges who stood for due process and immigrants’ rights in the face of nativist/restrictionist political agendas.
Yet, for eight years of the Obama Administration and now a year into the Biden Administration, Dem AGs have lacked the guts, awareness, and vision to fight back by “de-weaponizing” the regressive GOP-constructed Immigration Judiciary and recruiting replacements from among the “best and the brightest” among the “deep pool” of expert, intellectually fearless “progressive practical scholars.”
Not only that, but Dems have totally blown a unique opportunity to remake and establish the Immigration Judiciary not only as “America’s best judiciary” — a model for better Article IIIs — but also as a training ground for the diverse progressive judiciary of the future!
Even more significantly, tens of thousands of lives that should have been saved by an expert, due-process-oriented, racially sensitive judiciary have been, and continue to be, sacrificed on the alter of GOP nativism and Dem indifference to quality judging and human suffering in the Immigration Courts!
Compare the diverse, progressive backgrounds and qualifications of “Stern’s 40” with those on the totally underwhelming list of the most recent Garland “giveaways” of precious, life-determining Immigration Judge positions! See, e.g., https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1457171/download
The progressive talent is definitely out there to change the trajectory of the Immigration Courts for the better! Garland’s failure to inspire, recruit, appoint, and tout the “best and brightest” in American law for his Immigration Courts is a horrible “whiff” with disturbing national and international implications!
Article III Federal Courts deal with the mundane as well as the profound. By contrast, lives and futures are on the line in every single Immigration Court case! Often effective judicial review of EOIR’s haphazard, widely inconsistent, unprincipled, and one-sided decisions is unavailable, either as a legal or practical matter. The exceptionally poor performance of the Immigration Courts that continues under Garland threatens the underpinnings of our entire justice system and American democracy!
Right now, Garland’s broken system has a largely self-created 1.5+ million case ever-expanding backlog! At a very conservative estimate of four family members, co-workers, employees, employers, students, co-religionists, neighbors, and community members whose lives are intertwined with each of those stuck in Garland’s hopelessly broken, biased, and deficient system, at least 6 million American lives hang in the balance — twisting in the wind among Garland’s “backlog on steroids!” Yet, amazingly, it’s “below the radar screen” of Stern and other leading progressive voices!
I doubt that any Federal Court in America, with the possible exception of the Supremes, holds as many human lives and futures in its hands. Not to mention that “dehumanization” and “Dred Scottification” of the other in Immigration Court drifts over into the Article III Courts on a regular basis. Once you start viewing one group of humans as “less than persons” under the Constitution, it’s easy to add others to the “de-personification” process.
Yet, Garland cavalierly treats the Immigration Courts as just another mundane piece of his reeling bureaucratic mess at the DOJ. The long overdue and completely justified “housecleaning” at Trump’s anti-democracy insurrectionist regime seems far from Garland’s serenely detached mind!
For Pete’s sake, even ICE Special Agents understand the need to “rebrand” themselves by escaping the inept and disreputable ICE bureaucracy left over from Trump:
They say their affiliation with ICE’s immigration enforcement role is endangering their personal safety, stifling their partnerships with other agencies and scaring away crime victims, according to a copy of the report provided to The Washington Post.
But, Garland doesn’t understand the well-deserved toxic reputation of EOIR among legal experts? Gimme a break!
Garland also stands accountable for his spineless failure to insist on a dismantling of the bogus, illegal, immoral, and ultimately ineffectual Title 42 abomination at the Southern Border and an immediate return to the rule of law for asylum seekers.
Unless and until the Dems get serious about gutsy, radical progressive reforms of the Immigration Courts, the downward spiral of American justice will continue! Lives will be lost, and many of those who helped put Dems in power will be pissed off and “de-motivated” going into the midterms. That’s a really bad plan for Dems and for America’s future!
As Dems’ hopes of achieving meaningful Article III judicial reforms predictably are stymied, their inexcusable failure to reform and improve the Immigraton Courts that belong to them becomes a gargantuan, totally unnecessary “missed opportunity!” Talk about “unforced error!” See, e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/12/28/supreme-court-term-limits/
If Dems suffer an “enthusiasm gap” among their key progressive base going into the key 2022 midterms, they need look no further than Garland’s tone-deaf and inept failure to bring long overdue and readily achievable progressive personnel, procedural, management, and substantive reforms to his dysfunctional Immigration Courts. That — not a false sense of achievement — should have been the “headliner” for Stern and other progressive voices!
“Expedience over excellence, enforcement over equity, gimmicks over innovation is good enough for Government work!” — The “vision” for Garland’s EOIR! But, progressive experts aren’t buying his “tunnel vision.” PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons Amateur Night
Will Garland ever be held accountable for threatening the lives of migrants and undermining our entire justice system by running the most dysfunctional “court system” in America on his watch? PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Dan Kowalski reports @ LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Despite its obligation under Saidane, the DHS made no effort—good faith or otherwise—to procure for Alcaraz’s cross-examination the witnesses whose testimony was embodied in the probation report and upon whose testimony the BIA ultimately relied in denying his appeal. See id. This failure impugned the probation report’s reliability and rendered the BIA’s procedure fundamentally unfair. … Based on the BIA’s failure to require the DHS to make a good faith effort to present the author of the probation report or the declarant for Alcaraz’s cross-examination and the prejudice generated therefrom, we grant in part Alcaraz’s petition and remand for a hearing that comports with the requirements of § 1229a(b)(4)(B). … On remand, cross-examination of the author of the probation report (or the declarant) could affect both the IJ’s credibility determination as to Alcaraz and the BIA’s decision to credit the probation report’s version of events over Alcaraz’s.”
Rodriguez controls the outcome of this case. Here, as in Rodriguez, “[t]he initial NTA” sent to Lemus-Ayala “did not contain the time and date of [his] hearing.” Id. And just as in Rodriguez, see id., the BIA’s holding in this case that Lemus-Ayala was not entitled to recission of the in absentia removal order rested on the Board’s legal conclusion that an NTA “that does not specify the time and place of an individual’s removal hearing . . . meets the requirements of … §1229(a), so long as a hearing notice specifying this information is later sent to the individual.” The BIA’s conclusion to that effect was an abuse of discretion, as it was based on an erroneous interpretation of a statute. See Barrios-Cantarero, 772 F.3d at 1021.
An in absentia removal “order may be rescinded . . . upon a motion to reopen filed at any time if the alien demonstrates that the alien did not receive notice in accordance with . . . section 1229(a).” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C). Lemus-Ayala was not notified “in accordance with . . . section 1229(a),” and so, as in Rodriguez, the proper disposition is to vacate the BIA’s decision to deny Lemus-Ayala’s motion to reopen and rescind the in absentia removal order, and to remand the case for further proceedings. See 15 F.4th at 356.1
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
“Carlos Escobar Gomez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his application for asylum. The BIA determined that Escobar Gomez was ineligible for asylum because he failed to establish membership in a particular social group defined with sufficient particularity. Because this ruling is not supported by a reasoned explanation, we grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceedings.” [Note the long and detailed concurrence by Judge Wynn.]
Even 4th Cir. “Ultra-conservative” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III has finally had enough, joining his panel colleagues in remanding after the BIA ignored both their own precedent and Circuit precedent on administrative closing in their “rush to no” to please their “partners” @ DHS Enforcement:
Finally, Merida-Saenz asserts that the Board erred by failing to remand to the IJ for the administrative closure of his case pursuant to our decision in Romero v. Barr, 937 F.3d 282, 297 (4th Cir. 2019) (holding that IJs and the Board possess “the general authority to administratively close cases”). While the Board acknowledged that Merida-Saenz had argued for administrative closure on appeal, it neither explicitly resolved that argument nor applied any of the relevant administrative closure factors thereto. See In re Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688, 696 (B.I.A. 2012) (specifying administrative closure factors). Moreover, the Board’s resolution of Merida-Saenz’s continuance request did not resolve his administrative closure argument. Although a continuance and an administrative closure are similar forms of relief, they are distinct in purpose and in result. See Romero, 937 F.3d at 289, 294 n.12 (contrasting circumstances in which continuance is appropriate with circumstances in which administrative closure is appropriate); Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 892 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that administrative closure is “like” a continuance but not identical thereto). Because the Board’s decision does not demonstrate that it has actually considered Merida-Saenz’s administrative closure argument, we grant the petition for review as to this argument and remand to the Board for further proceedings. See Gonzalez, 2021 WL 4888394, at *10 (remanding for Board to address administrative closure argument in first instance); Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 693-94 (4th Cir. 2008) (explaining that we cannot review the Board’s decision when the Board has given us “nothing to review”).
*****************
Obviously, the Article IIIs have their own due process problems with burying significant rulings, particularly in immigration, in highly inappropriate, approaching unethical, “unpublished” decisions. These aren’t “routine” cases except that material errors at Garland’s BIA are so frequent that Circuit Courts have wrongly come to view them as “routine” and thereby to “normalize” substandard judging.
That’s basically sweeping the festering and ever-growing problem of a dysfunctional and unjust EOIR “under the carpet” — something that both Garland and EOIR apparently have come to rely upon. The unpublished cases highlighted above each have important messages and analytical points for practitioners as well as the EOIR judges who screwed them up! Even Garland could learn by paying attention to the poor quality work being churned out by EOIR in his name!
You know you’ve hit rock bottom as an immigration jurist when even Judge Wilkinson can’t think of a way to paper over your errors and explain away your abuse of immigrants! The same might be said when you start getting reversed on a regular basis by the 5th Circuit — a court that almost never saw a migrant they didn’t want to dehumanize and deport!
In a real court system with real judges, DHS would be treated as a “party” not a “partner.” But, not in Garland’s courts, where judicial quality and fundamental fairness have gone to die and be buried. ⚰️🪦
Wonder why Dems struggle to govern? Look no further than the astounding lost opportunity for transforming EOIR into a real court system where great judges could be modeling due process, fundamental fairness, backlog-reducing better precedents, and best practices.
One of the best ‘fixes” for any broken system is appointing talented experts who will get the decisions right in the first place and promote excellence and efficiency by establishing, promoting, and, most of all enforcing, “best practices” systemwide, with particular emphasis on getting it right at the initial level, be that Immigration Court or the USCIS Asylum Office.
Of course, at EOIR that would mean appointing a BIA with judges who have the backgrounds and expertise to actually recognize what best interpretations and best practices are in the first place! Hint: It’s got nothing to do with bending over backwards to help “partners” at DHS enforcement, maximizing removal orders, positioning OIL to argue Chevron or Brand X, or thinking of new and creative ways that the system can be mis-used as a “deterrent” to individuals making claims for legal relief. Those were Sessions’s and Barr’s “priorities,” and Garland has done little to change the rancid culture in his Immgration Courts. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/12/15/%f0%9f%8f%b4%e2%80%8d%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%91%8e%f0%9f%8f%bd%f0%9f%a4%ae-aimless-docket-reshuffling-adr-on-steroids-eoir-dysfunction-shows-what-happens-when/
Instead, Garland has given us a potentially fatal dose of “good enough for Government work” — on steroids, with lives and the foundations of our democracy hanging in the balance every day!🤮👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽🤡
It’s an entirely unnecessary, ongoing national disgrace!🤮
