"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.
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
Hill: DACA was put in place as a temporary stopgap in 2012, giving the right to work and study, and deferral from potential deportation, to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as minors before 2007… Only a quarter of 2022 undocumented graduates would be eligible for DACA, making it the first graduating class since the policy’s been in place to have a majority of post-DACA undocumented graduates.
Law360: The U.S. Senate on Thursday voted down a resolution under the Congressional Review Act that could have overturned President Joe Biden’s policy vesting asylum officers with greater power over asylum. See also Biden prepares asylum overhaul at border, but court challenges loom.
WGBH: In a letter sent Thursday to the Office of the Inspector General, the delegation wrote they’re concerned over a report that only 15.5% of asylum applicants reviewed by the Boston asylum office between 2015 to 2020 were approved, which is roughly half of the national average of 28%. This is the second-lowest in the nation after the New York asylum office.
The City: With only days left in the legislative session, Albany lawmakers are pushing to put regulations for a largely unregulated immigration bail bond industry, notorious for literally shackling clients with crippling debt and bulky ankle monitors.
AIC: While the data is a small sample size, it paints a clear picture of why detention is so harmful, counter-productive, and arbitrary. For example, 52% were complaints about quality of life/living conditions. The next top complaints were about medical issues. The third category were about abuse & assault (legal access issues came in fourth).
Law360: A coalition of immigration and technology advocacy groups urged Amazon on Tuesday not to provide web hosting services for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s biometric information database, citing concerns about the project’s implications for civil liberties and privacy rights.
Harvard Business Review: Ran Abramitzky, a professor at Stanford University, and Leah Boustan, a professor at Princeton, looked at decades of data to understand the real impact that immigrants and their descendants have on America today. Their findings dispel several modern-day myths and suggest that not just political but also corporate leaders need to push for more rational rhetoric and policies.
WBEZ: These challenges are not isolated to the walls of Sullivan. With a record 100 million people displaced around the world, including 3 million Afghans, and the war in Ukraine adding to that tally every day, the Rogers Park school stands as an example of the kinds of challenges and transformations unfolding in schools and communities across the globe.
Law360: The Fifth Circuit is poised to consider the legality of a deportation relief program for immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. As oral arguments come up, Law360 takes a look at what’s happened thus far and what could happen in and outside the courts.
Law360: A Third Circuit panel ruled 2-1 in a precedential decision Thursday that a Dominican man convicted of endangering the welfare of a child could be deported because that crime qualifies as child abuse.
Courtside: Judge Ellen Liebowitz’s compact, cogent, powerful opinion is a terrific “mini-primer” on how PSG and “one central reason” nexus cases properly should be decided.
ACLU: Nine months after the fall of Kabul to the Taliban, USCIS’s abandonment of the humanitarian parole process of Afghans has left the plaintiffs stranded and in danger. After months of waiting, they have received either denials or no responses to their applications. One plaintiff applied for six family members, but tragically lost three of them while awaiting decisions on their applications for humanitarian parole.
Law360: The Biden administration asked a D.C. federal court on Tuesday to undo an order to speedily process green card applications for thousands of Afghan and Iraqi translators, saying the plan is no longer feasible due to chaos abroad and bureaucratic dysfunction at home.
AIC: The case before Mexico’s Supreme Court involved three indigenous Mexican citizens. Immigration officials detained the three siblings due to their appearance and limited proficiency in Spanish. They were held for eight days where the 18-year-old brother was tortured until he signed a document indicating he was from Guatemala, even though he could not read Spanish.
Chugh: As a result of a lawsuit, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) intends to no longer force certain adjustment of status applicants to leave the United States during their period of inadmissibility. Additionally, USCIS will not reject adjustment of status applications if an applicant was in the United States during the period of inadmissibility without a waiver. The new policy interpretation is still being finalized by the Department of Homeland Security and new USCIS guidance is expected soon.
Law360: A coalition of immigration and technology advocacy groups urged Amazon on Tuesday not to provide web hosting services for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s biometric information database, citing concerns about the project’s implications for civil liberties and privacy rights.
USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reminds the public that we offer immigration services that may help people affected by unforeseen circumstances, including the shooting in Uvalde, Texas.
AILA: Following the USCIS temporary final rule increasing the automatic extension period for EADs, USCIS created the EAD Automatic Extension Calculator to assist employers and employees with determining the EAD expiration date for eligible employees.
AILA: DHS notice stating that the Secretary directed the Homeland Security Advisory Council to establish a subcommittee which will provide findings and recommendations on how DHS can improve its customer experience and service delivery.
AIC: Thirteen people waiting to become U.S. citizens filed a lawsuit challenging U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ unreasonable delays and failure to process U.S. naturalization applications filed in 2020.
LexisNexis: Here are links to two May 21, 2022 CBP Title 42 guidance documents stemming from the Huisha Huisha v. Mayorkas (27 F.4th 718, CADC 2022) litigation. They went into effect at 12:01 a.m. (EDT) on May 23, 2022.
Huisha-Huisha Screening Monitoring: This form is intended to facilitate fact-gathering by advocates who encounter families improperly subject to Title 42 on or after May 23, 2022, due to CBP’s failure to conduct adequate screening to determine whether they fear persecution or torture, as required by Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, 27 F.4th 718 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
Professor Leah Pratt Boustan Economist Princeton University PHOTO: Princeton Website
LEAH BOUSTAN: I think that we’re seeing some of the same anti-immigrant rhetoric today than we’ve seen in the past US history. So we were interested in comparing immigrants that are coming to the U.S. today from all around the world to what we think of as the Ellis Island generation a century ago that faced a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment at the time. But now when we look back with hindsight on that generation, we have a very different view, a nostalgic view that sees those immigrants as contributing to society, building the economy. So we wanted to know are the immigrants that the U.S. is welcoming today on the same path and on the same trajectory as the past?
Honestly, what we find here really surprised both of us because we’ve heard all of the worries and concerns that people all across the aisle, I think, are expressing about immigrants today. That they come from poor countries. That it takes them a while to move up the ladder. So we were really surprised to see this really commonality between the Ellis Island generation and immigrants today. We end up seeing in the data that immigrants from Europe 100 years ago, and immigrants from Asia and Latin America today look like they’re on such a similar trajectory. Despite so many differences between the past and present, we see really a common immigrant story.
Check out the article from Harvard Business Review highlighted by Elizabeth above!
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
NYT: A federal judge on Friday blocked the Biden administration from lifting a pandemic-related health order whose scheduled expiration on Monday would have thrown open the doors of the United States to asylum seekers at the border for the first time in more than two years.
Spectrum: In the proposed settlement, filed over the weekend in Los Angeles federal court, the border patrol agrees to protocols requiring that detained minors be held in safe and sanitary conditions, not be separated from relatives, and have access to medical evaluations and prompt medical treatment when needed.
CBS: Over a 12-month span beginning in October 2020, U.S. Border Patrol agents processed 12,212 unaccompanied migrant minors who had been previously expelled under Title 42, according to internal Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
Law360: Programs that provide government-funded attorneys to noncitizens facing deportation are becoming more common in cities and states across the country, and immigration advocates hope to harness that momentum to scale up those initiatives to the federal level.
RollCall: The administration asked Congress to provide funding for just 25,000 detention beds — down from the current level of 34,000 — and requested an $87 million increase in funding for programs allowing for alternatives to detention.
CBS: The watchdog noted that “without clear COVID-19 testing policies and controls in place to enforce these policies, ERO may transport COVID-19–positive migrants on domestic commercial flights.” The report said the failed policy “risk[ed] exposing other migrants, ERO staff, and the general public to COVID-19.”
Yahoo: According to Higher Ed Immigration Portal, there are 1,644,000 students enrolled in public schools in the state of Texas, 58,255 of them undocumented. The United States as a whole is home to more than 427,000 undocumented students.
Law360: A Louisiana federal judge ordered President Joe Biden to keep intact a Trump-era order allowing for the swift expulsion of migrants amid the COVID-19 pandemic, ruling Friday that two dozen states would likely prove they weren’t provided enough notice when the administration announced plans to end the policy.
LexisNexis: A court filing on Saturday May 21, 2022, seeks U.S. Judge Dolly M. Gee’s preliminary approval of the settlement. The border patrol has agreed to a wide range of protocols requiring that detained minors are held in safe and sanitary conditions, not be separated from relatives, and have access to medical evaluations and prompt medical treatment when needed.
Law360: Petitioners before the Board of Immigration Appeals don’t have to file a brief supporting their appeal, but if they say they will and do not, the board can dismiss the case, the Third Circuit ruled Friday in affirming the dismissal of a Salvadoran man’s asylum request.
Law360: The Fifth Circuit revived claims that an asylum-seeker feared police brutality in Cameroon, saying that an immigration judge wrongly deemed him untruthful based on government reports that had never been “identified, referenced or discussed” during his court hearing.
Law360: A Seventh Circuit panel seemed unconvinced Wednesday by two Illinois counties’ argument that they should be able to pursue a constitutional challenge to a law Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed last year, which blocks immigration detention contracts with the federal government.
Law360: The daughter of a man who died by suicide in an immigration detention facility is suing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, GEO Group Inc., which runs the facility, and the city of McFarland, California, saying they ignored the man’s mental illness and tortured him by putting him in solitary confinement, leading to his death.
AP: The civil rights complaint alleges that Customs and Border Protection officers denied Shamloo and her husband entry to the U.S. based on their Iranian birth and violated procedures by demanding DNA samples. They and their two children are Canadian citizens.
AILA: DOS announced plans to reinstate the Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program (CFRP) and increase capacity for consular services in Cuba. Limited immigrant visa processing will resume in Havana, but most immigrant visa cases will still be processed at the U.S. Embassy in Georgetown, Guyana.
AILA: DHS notice of the designation of Afghanistan for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months, effective 5/20/22 through 11/20/23. (87 FR 30976, 5/20/22)
AILA: DHS notice suspending certain regulatory requirements for F-1 nonimmigrant students whose country of citizenship is Afghanistan and who are experiencing severe economic hardship as a result of the situation in Afghanistan. (87 FR 30971, 5/20/22)
AILA: DOS provided updated guidance for nationals of Ukraine seeking to enter or entering the United States. The guidance clarifies information on the Uniting for Ukraine program, nonimmigrant visas, immigrant visas, humanitarian parole, refugee status, and more.
DHS: The MPP Case Request System provides an avenue for individuals to initiate a review of their enrollment in MPP if they believe they should not be included in the program.
AILA: Social Security Administration (SSA) notice of a new matching program with DHS that sets forth the terms, conditions, and safeguards under which DHS will disclose information to SSA to identify noncitizens who leave the U.S. voluntarily and noncitizens who are removed. (87 FR 30321, 5/18/22)
AILA: The National Visa Center has suspended its public inquiry telephone line, effective May 23, 2022. Contact information and information on common NIV and IV inquiries are available.
CGRS Multi-User Access: CGRS is excited to announce that our Technical Assistance (TA) Library now supports multiple-user access. If you are working with others (e.g., clinic students, pro bono mentors, or others at your organization) on an asylum case registered with CGRS, you can now share the TA case with them and access the same curated resource library.
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
A family in Tijuana who wanted to request asylum and advocacy groups including Innovation Law Lab sought to intervene in the lawsuit. They argued that a court order keeping Title 42 in place should only apply to states involved with the suit. Summerhays denied their request.
Alicia Duran Raymundo, her partner and their 6-year-old daughter fled El Salvador after gang members threatened to torture and kill them. She said in a news release from her lawyers last week that they wanted to live with extended family in California while pursuing asylum, but instead joined the thousands of migrants living in Mexican border towns while they wait for the U.S. to reopen its doors.
“We’ve tried many times to ask for asylum but they just tell us the border is closed,” Duran said.
Seeking asylum is a legal right guaranteed under federal and international law, regardless of how someone arrived on U.S. soil. Some of those turned away are fleeing persecution, while others pushed out by turmoil in their home countries seek jobs and security.
Though migrants can’t seek asylum under Title 42, they can still be screened under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. But those screenings are more difficult to pass.
Lee Gelernt Deputy Director ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Program PHOTO: ACLU
Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s immigrant rights project, noted that regardless of Friday’s decision, a prior ruling in Washington, D.C., District Court taking effect Monday prevents Title 42 from applying to families who face persecution or torture if they are expelled. Gelernt is lead attorney in that case.
“Hypocritically, the states that brought this lawsuit seemingly care about COVID restrictions only when they involve asylum seekers,” he said. “The lawsuit is a naked attempt to misuse a public health law to end protections for those fleeing danger.”
. . . .
Migrants have been removed from the U.S. nearly 2 million times since Title 42 was first used in March 2020, in some cases to dangerous situations in which they’ve been tortured or raped.
. . . .
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick Policy Counsel American Immigration Council Photo: Twitter
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Council, predicted that Title 42 is likely to stay in place until at least next year.
Summerhays’ decision signals that while the Biden administration can establish a policy under emergency conditions, terminating it requires a rulemaking comment period that could take six months to a year.
Louisiana and the other states are not arguing that the policy can never end, Reichlin-Melnick said, but they’re imposing judicial roadblocks to delay it. The CDC is likely to try to end the policy again while satisfying the judge’s demands, he said.
In the meantime, he said, “we’re going to see an ever higher number of repeat crossings. Look at the border and tell me Title 42 works.”
**********************
The case is Louisiana v. CDC, WD LA, 05-20–22. Here’s a link to the opinion:
Of course Title 42 doesn’t work! But, it’s never been about a “working” border asylum policy. NO, it’s always been about cruelty fueled by nativist racism!
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.
The case is Miranda v. Garland, and it’s published:
Quote from Judge Marvin Quattlebaum’s wrong-headed decision, joined by fellow Trump appointee Judge Julius Richardson:
QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge:
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) permits the Attorney General to detain aliens1 pending their
removal hearings. And the Attorney General has adopted procedures for making that discretionary decision. Under those procedures, an alien is given notice and three opportunities to seek release by showing they are neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.
A district court determined that a class of aliens had a likelihood of establishing that those procedures violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. That court then issued a preliminary injunction ordering, on a class- wide basis, that to continue detaining an alien under § 1226(a), the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that an alien is either a flight risk or a danger to the community. The district court also required immigration judges, again on a class-wide basis, to consider an alien’s ability to pay any bond imposed and consider alternatives to detention.
However, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue class-wide injunctive relief that enjoined or restrained the process used to conduct § 1226(a) bond hearings. As for the individual relief issued by the district court, the detention procedures adopted for § 1226(a) bond hearings provide sufficient process to
1 We realize that the use of the term “alien” has been the subject of some debate. See e.g., Martinez Rivera v. U.S. Att’y Gen., No. 20-13201, 2021 WL 2836460, at *7 (11th Cir. July 8, 2021). We use the term because Congress used it in the text of the applicable statutes, and the same term is used in the applicable regulations. Our use of the term “alien” is not intended to express any opinion, pejorative or otherwise, about the plaintiffs in this action or others challenging their detention under our immigration laws.
3
satisfy constitutional requirements. For that reason, the aliens are unable to establish a likelihood of success on their due process claims. Nor have they shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in their favor or that an injunction is in the public interest. Therefore, we vacate the district court’s preliminary injunction order.
Abetter quote from the only Panel Judge to get it right, Chief Judge Michael Urbanski of the WDVA, (an Obama appointee) sitting by designation:
While I am mindful of the executive’s vast authority over immigration, it must still
comport with constitutional safeguards. With this balancing in mind, requiring a detained noncitizen to prove he is not a danger to the community or risk of flight is unconstitutionally onerous on an already vulnerable group of defendants and violates due process. In sum, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the district court’s conclusion that the Due Process Clause requires the government to bear the burden of proof at § 1226(a) detention hearings and remand the case to the district court for consideration of § 1252(f)(1) and the availability of class-wide declaratory relief.
********************************
Well, at least one judge got it right!
The Round Table ⚔️🛡 filed an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case. Additionally, Round Table Member Judge Denise Slavin filed an affidavit (cited by the USDJ) before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. There, Hon.Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge, correctly ruled for the respondents. The Trump DOJ appealed, and Garland decided to continue to advance the prior Administration’s anti-due-process position before the Fourth Circuit.
Gosh, and Dem politicos wonder why it’s hard for them to gin up enthusiasm for the midterms!
“At the heart of this case is an effort by advocates to learn about the circumstances of an asylum-seeker’s tragic death in federal custody. The Freedom of Information Act exists for just such a purpose—to ensure an informed citizenry, promote official transparency, and provide a check against government impunity. Yet here the advocates’ FOIA requests met first with silence and then with stonewalling; only after the advocates filed suit did the government begin to comply with its statutory obligations. Our task is to discern whether the government’s belated disclosure was “adequate” under FOIA. We conclude that it was not. … REVERSED, VACATED, and REMANDED.”
As Andrew Free ;pointed out to me, the 9th Circuit suggested some potential “bad faith” at work here in footnote 2 (p. 22):
2 Our conclusion is strengthened by evidence that the Government withheld information under this exemption in an overbroad manner. For instance, ICE redacted a portion of Hernandez’s credible fear interview under Exemption 7(E), but when TLC received an unredacted version from the CoreCivic production, the redacted text read as follows: “I left because my life was threatened by the Maras gang. A group of Maras raped and tried to kill me I was afraid for my life and left Honduras.” This statement from Hernandez could not possibly fall under the category of techniques, procedures, or guidelines. Such a redaction suggests that the agencies may have invoked Exemption 7(E) in an effort to shield prejudicial information. See Pulliam v. EPA, 292 F. Supp. 3d 255, 260 (D.D.C. 2018).
This raises the additional questions of 1) why is this going on in a Dem Administration that promised to restore the rule of law toimmigration; and 2) why is Garland’s DOJ defending this nonsense and incredibly shoddy process in Federal Court?
So, the DHS can’t make advance preparation for orderly resumption of legal processing for asylum seekers? Clearly fabricated “harm” over human lives and human rights? Ignoring the well-documented record of deadly harm inflicted on those seeking asylum by lawless Title 42 enforcement? Racist actions by a U.S. District Judge specifically directed against Hispanic migrants from the Northern Triangle? No realistic connection whatsoever to “public health?” Obviously this is a scheme by an unqualified Federal Judge and White Nationalist GOP state AGs to end asylum law at the border!
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
ICE: On April 4, 2022, Principal Legal Advisor Kerry E. Doyle issued a memorandum to the OPLA workforce titled Guidance to OPLA Attorneys Regarding the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Laws and the Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion (Doyle Memorandum), which will take effect on April 25, 2022. The Doyle Memorandum is consistent with DHS Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas’ September 30, 2021 memorandum titled Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law, which took effect on November 29, 2021. Upon its effective date, the Doyle Memorandum rescinds OPLA’s prior PD guidance.
Reuters: The Biden administration on Tuesday released a final rule expanding a program that allows applicants for various employment-related immigration benefits to pay up to $2,500 to speed up the process, in a bid to ease massive backlogs at the agency. See also USCIS Announces New Actions to Reduce Backlogs, Expand Premium Processing, and Provide Relief to Work Permit Holders (USCIS continues to make progress toward a temporary final rule currently named “Temporary Increase of the Automatic Extension Period of Employment Authorization and Documentation for Certain Renewal Applicants.”).
Law360: Immigrant rights, community and legal advocacy organizations (including NIJC) asked Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Tuesday to abandon attempts to undermine local policies limiting cooperation with DHS agencies and instead terminate enforcement agreements with cities and counties.
Intercept: The privately run facility where Argueta Anariba was held was one of several new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in Louisiana. The implications of caging thousands of people in a state that’s notorious for extreme weather crystallized with the intensifying wind.
NYT: The visa program being expanded, known as the H-2B visa program, allows American businesses to hire foreign workers for seasonal nonagricultural jobs like mowing lawns, cleaning hotel rooms, staffing amusement parks and waiting tables. Industries like landscaping, hospitality and tourism are particularly reliant on foreign nationals to meet high demand during the busy summer months.
BIA: A finding of guilt in a proceeding that affords defendants all of the constitutional rights of criminal procedure that are applicable without limitation and that are incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment is a “conviction” for immigration purposes under section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Law360: The Second Circuit ruled Monday that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services failed to weigh the full facts when denying an Afghan national’s application for permanent residence because he fought opposition forces under duress after being abducted by the Taliban.
Justia: The BIA also did not address Cruz-Garcia’s challenge to the IJ’s alleged failure to permit Lesley to testify, but that may have been because the BIA erroneously concluded that Cruz-Garcia had not challenged the IJ’s discretionary determination and therefore did not “reach . . . the arguments raised on appeal.”… Because the BIA failed to address an exhausted argument that ultimately challenges the IJ’s determination that he was not entitled to cancellation of removal, remand is warranted.
CA5: In his credible-fear interview, Muminov did not describe his alleged 2016 protest of the confiscation of his passport or the beating that he incurred thereafter… Given these discrepancies, a reasonable factfinder could conclude, as the IJ and BIA did, that Muminov’s testimony about politically motivated attacks “was too inconsistent”… He cites his testimony about extortionate fees that he was forced to pay to live in Moscow and the harassment and discrimination that he faced there. This testimony may well support a restricted-residence exception, but we cannot say that the IJ and BIA were compelled to conclude that…
Law360: A Venezuelan mom must return her children to South America, the Sixth Circuit ordered in a published but split decision, ruling that an incident of domestic violence she said was committed by the father and witnessed by the children was too minor for the court to refuse a Hague Convention petition for their return.
Law360: An Eighth Circuit panel declined Wednesday to review a Somali man’s petition to avoid deportation, saying the immigration judge who looked at the case properly determined that even if the man’s testimony were found credible, he still wouldn’t likely face torture in Somalia due to his Christian beliefs.
Washington Blade: “Any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to find a pattern or practice of persecution against transgender women in Honduras,” reads the 10th Circuit ruling.
Law360: A California federal judge has approved a settlement between a class of unauthorized immigrants and the federal government that prohibits judges from setting unreasonable bond amounts for those detained without considering their ability to pay.
An Arizona federal judge on Friday dismissed the families putative Bivens class action regarding family separation against 15 high-ranking Trump Administration officials but rejected the federal government’s motion to dismiss as to the families’ FTCA claims against the United States.
Law360: An Ohio federal judge refused to shelve his earlier ruling blocking the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from following a Biden administration mandate narrowing immigration enforcement priorities when making custody decisions while DHS appeals his order.
Law360: A Connecticut federal judge dismissed a Honduran immigrant’s claims that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer raped and blackmailed her with the threat of deportation for seven years, finding that her claims are all time-barred.
AILA: CDC released an order to terminate its Title 42 public health order on May 23, 2022. The document assesses the current state of the COVID-19 pandemic, provides legal considerations, and describes plans for DHS to mitigate COVID-19, provide vaccinations to migrants, and resume use of Title 8.
AILA: USCIS announced actions to reduce caseloads and processing times. These include setting new internal cycle time goals, creating premium processing availability of Form I-539, Form I-765 and Form I-140 in FY2022, and working toward a temporary final rule for streamlining EAD processes.
DOJ OIG: In May 2018, eight members of Congress asked the DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to investigate allegations that after January 2017, offers for Immigration Judge and Board Member positions were withdrawn or delayed for political or ideological reasons. While we were engaged in assessing these allegations, we received additional allegations that other candidates may have been favored in the hiring process because of their connections to the Trump administration, or perceived political affiliation or ideology. The DOJ OIG did not find sufficient evidence based on an assessment of the allegations to warrant opening a full investigation. However, during the course of our assessment, we identified concerns about the Immigration Judge and Board Member hiring process.
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
On its face, the “Doyle Memo” on PD looks good. But, as is always the case with ICE, it all depends on how it is interpreted, used, and applied on the “Field Office Level” and before the Immigration Courts.
On Title 42, interestingly, GOP states that were fine with the Trump regime’s racist attacks on the rule of law now are apoplectic about the Biden’s Administration’s long overdue effort to restore law, order, and human rights to the border.
It will also be telling to see how Federal Courts (particularly the 5th Circuit) that happily facilitated the Executive’s scofflaw, racist assaults on the Constitution and immigrants’ rights during the Trump era react to the Biden Administration’s efforts to restore at least some semblance of asylum laws and due process.
Experts like Blaine Bookey, Legal Director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies; Eleanor Acer, Director of Refugee Protection, Human Rights First; Lee Gelernt, Deputy Director, ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, and many others have pointed out that the “Trump/Miller Title 42 Blockade” was an illegal (not to mention immoral) pretext “from the git go.”
We can only hope that Garland does a better job of defending the termination of Title 42 than he did with the equally illegal and immoral “Remain in Mexico” program. However, having made the bad decision to rely upon and defend Title 42 for the last year, and fecklessly standing by while it was illegally invoked by the Biden Administration over a million times to deny migrants their legal rights, Garland might find some of his best legal arguments foreclosed by his own actions.
It’s also possible that given the unconscionable delay, lack of enthusiasm, and lack of effective planning within the Biden Administration for the termination of Title 42 and for vindicating the rights of immigrants of color in general, some of those in influential positions would not be unhappy if a “Trumpist Federal Court” forced them to keep illegally turning back refugees at our border forever!
Yup, it’s a great settlement! But, only for those in the CDCA or who don’t understand how totally screwed up, unfair, directionless, visionless, and out of control Garland’s “Clown Courts” 🤡 are!
So, Garland agrees that “his judges” will comply with the Constitution, but ONLY in the CDCA. In the other 95% of Immigration Courts nationwide, they evidently are free to choose to act in a “normal” arbitrary and capricious unconstitutional manner. Nice!
Of course, by initially setting no bond or more than $10K in any case, DHS can unilaterally invoke the “regulatory clamper” (8 CFR 1003.19(i)(2)) to defeat any release on bond pending appeal. Since the BIA routinely holds bond appeals until the detained merits cases are complete, then dismisses them as “moot,” the Administration retains lots of tools to act unconstitutionally.
Another nice touch!
Does anyone truly understand how completely screwed up and unconstitutional Garland’s “star chambers courts” are?
This is what “justice” looks like in 21st Century America, in a Dem Administration no less? Gimmie a break?
A better BIA might have imposed Constitutional due process requiring consideration of ability to pay nationwide, thus preempting the need for more Article III Court litigation and inconsistent decisions affecting the fundamental human right of liberty!
A “better BIA” might have properly limited the DHS’s unconstitutional authority to use the “clamper” to block release on bond, rather than reducing Immigration Judges to a “clerical” role. See, e.g.,Matter of Joseph (“Joseph I”), 22 I&N Dec. 660, 674 (BIA 1999) (Moscato, Board Member dissenting, joined by Schmidt, Chair, and Heilman, Villageliu, Guendelsberger, Rosenberg, Jones, Board Members).
A better AG might have eliminated the unconstitutional “clamper” that gives ICE counsel unfair leverage in bond cases.
Julie Soininen Esq. Attorney Montagut & Sobral PC Falls Church, VA PHOTO: M&S PC
Dear Judge Schmidt:
I hope that you are doing well and enjoying March Madness. Check out this settlement that we just negotiated! (I have been working on this for the past 2 years!)
Michelle Mendez, Rebecca Scholtz and Bradley Jenkins from CLINIC, (now with the National Lawyers Guild) were HUGE forces in this case…… Michelle is the one who got the ball rolling when I contacted her about what was going on. 6 of our clients were the named Plaintiffs, but we never could have handled this case on our own.
I am also attaching a recent article that I did which explains the whole (mess of a) back story……
“U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agreed to restore a path to permanent residency for many Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries blocked by then-acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli—an illegally appointed Trump official. Because of today’s agreement, TPS beneficiaries impacted by this policy will be able to reopen and dismiss their removal orders and apply to adjust their status to become permanent residents—eliminating the threat of deportation if their TPS protections are revoked in the future.
The agreement is the result of a new settlement in CARECEN v. Cuccinelli, a lawsuit filed by Democracy Forward, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), Montagut & Sobral, PC, and Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP in August 2020. Seven Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries and the Central American Resource Center (CARECEN) sued the Trump administration for unlawfully denying tens of thousands of TPS beneficiaries the opportunity to take steps to adjust their immigration status and become permanent residents. In the lawsuit, the seven current TPS holders shared their stories. Now, each one now has the opportunity to obtain permanent residence.
The December 2019 policy change, disguised as a mere clarification, was one of the Trump administration’s many efforts to eliminate TPS protections for tens of thousands of beneficiaries. The groups’ lawsuit alleged the change violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act; was motivated by the Trump administration’s racial and anti-immigrant bias; and was unlawfully authorized by Ken Cuccinelli, whose appointment was deemed illegal by a federal court in March 2020 in response to a separate lawsuit brought by Democracy Forward, CLINIC, RAICES, and Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
“Today’s agreement will allow TPS beneficiaries—many of whom have lived in the U.S. for decades and built deep roots in their communities—to once again seek permanent residency and extinguish the threat of deportation if their TPS protections are revoked,” said Democracy Forward Senior Counsel John Lewis. “The Trump administration’s policy illegally sought to destabilize the lives of tens of thousands with TPS protections. We’re proud to have helped restore protections that ensure our neighbors have a path to pursue permanent residency.”
“This victory will change the lives of those individuals impacted,” stated Abel Nuñez, Executive Director of CARECEN. “As an organization, we are proud of our continued efforts to defend our community as they integrate into their new home in the U.S. CARECEN will work with those TPS members that qualify under the settlement and also keep fighting to ensure that all TPS beneficiaries who have been in the U.S. for over 20 years and have complied with everything that has been asked of them are able to apply for legal permanent residence.”
“As an organization grounded in Catholic social teaching, we celebrate today’s settlement that will prevent family separation and provide pathways to citizenship for thousands of TPS beneficiaries,” said Anna Gallagher, Executive Director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., or CLINIC. “Our faith tradition teaches us that we are to stand for justice and against any barrier to human flourishing. This agreement eliminates the barrier of an unlawful policy created by an illegally-appointed official. We are proud to have stood among those who fought against this policy, and we celebrate alongside our immigrant brothers and sisters whose lives will now be profoundly changed.”
Concepción de Montagut and Germaine Sobral from Montagut & Sobral P.C., who brought forward their client’s cases affected by the policy, said: “When we saw the negative impact the policy change had on the long-awaited permanent residence applications of our clients, we knew we had to fight the policy. We are proud to have been part of a team that has fought for this change that will now allow not only our six named clients, but also thousands of TPS beneficiaries to reopen and dismiss their deportation cases and proceed with their permanent residence applications so they can remain in the US with their families and turn their dreams into reality.”
Thanks Julie! Just another example of how the NDPA goes around cleaning up the messes created by the Government immigration bureaucracy!
The attack on TPS Adjustment was one of the stupidest moves of the Trump regime. The folks they “targeted” were all long term residents, many employed, paying taxes, and making substantial contributions to our economy, and all met the requirements for lawful permanent residence.
Rather than following the law and helping these deserving individuals to “get out of limbo,” the Trump regime wasted taxpayer money, violated the law, and attempted to undermine our economy by “targeting” them for race-based discriminatory treatment.
Fortunately, members of the NDPA like Julie and the team she mentions were there to thwart the illegal actions of “Cooch.”
From Tasha Moro, Communications Director @ Justice Action Center:
Tasha Moro Communications Director,,Justice Action Center PHOTO: Justice Action Center
Hi friends!
In response to states like TX, FL, AZ and others engaged in unrelenting legal challenges to defend Trump-era policies that harm immigrants, JAC is launching our litigation tracker microsite—an interactive, searchable index of anti-immigrant legal challenges, decoded and technical legal summaries, court filings, news coverage, and advocacy tools. We hope it’s useful to advocates and litigators alike!
As a compliment to the tracker, we also send out a biweekly newsletter summarizing the latest case updates, which you can subscribe to here. Feel free to explore the microsite, and read our press release below, and RT our thread here!
All the best,
Tasha
JAC’s New Litigation Tracker Follows States’ Legal Efforts to Uphold Trump-Era Immigration Policies
LOS ANGELES—Justice Action Center (JAC) launched a litigation tracker microsite that follows states’ legal challenges to inclusive federal immigration policies. Since President Biden took office, states like Texas, Arizona, Florida, and others have poured immense resources into impeding progress and defending Trump-era policies that demonize, endanger, and discriminate against immigrants. Updated continuously, the JAC litigation tracker decodes these complex legal battles using accessible language, and includes court filings, news coverage, and resources.
One example of such a case detailed in the tracker is Biden v. Texas, the critical Remain in Mexico (also known as “MPP” or “RMX”) case that the Supreme Court announced last month it would hear on an expedited schedule. Over the last year, Texas has challenged President Biden’s attempts to end Trump’s cruel and inhumane RMX program, which has stranded tens of thousands of asylum seekers in dangerous conditions in Mexico while awaiting their immigration court hearings in the U.S.
Like other cases, JAC’s litigation tracker outlines the history of Biden v. Texas as it worked its way up the federal court system. Providing critical analysis, the tracker explains how the Supreme Court’s decision will not only determine the future of asylum in the United States, but also have far reaching implications on executive powers. Users will find continuously updated news coverage and resources that can be used to take action on this and other important immigration related litigation.
“It is crucial that the American public is informed of various states’ attempts to obstruct inclusive immigration policies that would benefit our communities, culture, and economy. JAC’s litigation tracker decodes these legal moves to empower people of conscience to engage in smart, creative advocacy to counter them—whether they have a law degree or not,” said JAC legal director Esther Sung.
As a complement to the tracker, JAC sends out a bi-weekly newsletter outlining the latest courtroom updates, which users can subscribe to here.
Justice Action Center (JAC) is a new nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting for greater justice for immigrant communities by combining litigation and storytelling. JAC is committed to bringing additional litigation resources to address unmet needs, empower clients, and change the corrosive narrative around immigrants in the U.S. Learn more at justiceactioncenter.org and follow us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.
*******************
The bad news: These morally debilitated heirs to the slave-owning class and Jim Crow politicians exist and, like those antecedents, hold influential positions of public trust that they use to pick on and dehumanize the vulnerable.
The good news: You’ll no longer have to look under rocks and other dark places where slimy creatures hang out to see what shenanigans they are up to now!
Just when you think the GOP couldn’t sink any lower, they dredge up these sleazy “public officials” who show that there is no lower limit.
Leading Senate Democrats demanded that the Biden administration immediately end a Trump-era policy that blocks asylum-seeking migrants from crossing land borders into the United States, after lawyers said U.S. Customs and Border Protection expelled a single mother of three who had traveled from Ukraine to Mexico seeking refuge.
Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) cited the “desperate” Ukrainian family at a news conference Thursday and said he was deeply disappointed that the Biden administration has dragged out the Trump-era policy, which a federal appeals court in D.C. last week called “questionable.” The Trump administration issued the order two years ago under Title 42, which is the public health code. Since then, officials have expelled more than 1.6 million migrants to countries such as Haiti and Mexico.
“The United States is supposed to welcome refugees with open arms, not put them in additional danger by denying them a chance to plead their case and leaving them at the mercy of criminals and smugglers,” Schumer said, joined by advocates for immigrants. “Now’s the time to stop the madness.”
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, added that the policy “has created life-threatening conditions” for migrants. He called on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which issued the order under President Donald Trump and has extended it under President Biden, to rescind it.
. . . .
Sofiia, 34, who asked to be identified only by her first name because she has family sheltering in their basements in Ukraine, said in a telephone interview that her family had enjoyed a good life there. She worked as a Hebrew teacher and lived in her father’s house. They left as bombs grew closer.
“I was seriously afraid for my life and the life of my kids,” she said in English, one of four languages that she speaks.
She said she and her children — ages 6, 12 and 14 — flung suitcases stuffed with clothes and medicines into her old Citroen and drove straight to Moldova, the closest border, and then into Romania, where they traveled to Germany and caught a flight to Mexico. She said that they tried to enter legally twice, once by car and again by foot, and that officials rejected them both times, citing the Title 42 order.
“I was surprised that they don’t even want to listen,” she said. “I was trying to tell them that I have tests and I am vaccinated but they told me, ‘No, no, no, no, no.’”
She said she does not speak Spanish and was crying on the bridge in Mexico when lawyer Blaine Bookey spotted her. Bookey, the legal director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California’s Hastings law school, was there with her students to aid Haitian migrants facing similar troubles.
ADVERTISEMENT
00:00
Bookey said Customs and Border Protection told her that they would consider admitting the Ukrainian family. They were planning to try again Thursday, she said, adding that shelters in Mexico are filled with other would-be refugees who are not eligible to enter.
“There’s families like this that are showing up at the border from all sorts of countries from similar levels of violence. They deserve process to apply for asylum,” Bookey said. “This case really brings it home for people how just problematic this policy is.”
*********************
Read Maria’s full article at the link.
Rhetoric over action!
“Do as I say, not as I do!”
More cowardly performances from AG Garland and SG Prelogar who continue to “defend the indefensible,” putting politics over their constitutional duty to speak up for due process, human rights, racial justice, adherence to international conventions, and the rule of law.
The “COVID emergency” appears to be “over” everywhere in the U.S., even in areas with significant infection rates, EXCEPT for asylum seekers at the Southern Border who never were a major threat anyway.
“Saying no” to desperate Ukrainian mothers and children seeking refuge in the U.S. That’s ”law enforcement?” That’s how your tax dollars are being spent? Do these count as “border apprehensions?”
The Dem leaders are right to speak out. But, they waited far too long to do so. This travesty has been going on since Day 1 of the Biden Administration.
The only “hero” 🌟 here is Blaine Bookey and others like her who have the guts and courage to stand up for equal justice for all when politicos, judges, and public officials “tank!”
Blaine Bookey Legal Director Center for Gender & Refugee Studies @ Hastings Law Photo: CGRS website
Meanwhile, although the opposition to Biden’s scofflaw policy hasn’t restored the rule of law for most asylum seekers, it might have generated at least a modest reaction. CBS News reports that the CDC has revoked the (bogus) Title 42 authority to bar the entry of unaccompanied children seeking asylum.News: https://apple.news/Anfp9S-UAQFqT5PWRc-8u2A
Trump Judge Mark T. Pittman has a very explicit vision of the future for brown-skinned children seeking protection from “White Nationalist Nation.” 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)
ThreadOpen appSee new TweetsConversationAaron Reichlin-Melnick@ReichlinMelnick🚨Absolute madness. The same day the DC Circuit rules that families can’t be expelled under Title 42 to places they will be persecuted, a federal judge in Texas just overruled the CDC and ordered the Biden administration to expel unaccompanied children. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.347182/gov.uscourts.txnd.347182.100.0_1.pdf…
. . . .
*************************
Read the rest of Aaron’s feed at the link.
Although the DC Circuit basically confirmed that the evidence produced by plaintiffs showed illegal returns to death and that there was little, if any, support for the draconian Title 42 exclusion order, the relief granted was unacceptably narrow. The order merely directed the Administration to cease returning individuals to countries where they would be persecuted or tortured.
That order is weak because:
It doesn’t specify any particular fair procedure that must be followed by DHS in determining who faces persecution or torture. That appears to leave open the possibility of DHS employing bogus “summary determinations by enforcement agents” rather than using Asylum Officers and having cases referred to Immigration Courts.
There are no limits on the Government’s ability to detain individuals and/or return them to other countries.
The standard for so-called “withholding of removal” to persecution is “more likely than not” as opposed to the more generous “well-founded fear” or “reasonable possibility” standard for asylum (although individuals should be able to invoke the regulatory “presumption of future persecution” arising out of past persecution).
Even if granted, withholding of removal does not provide individuals with “durable legal status” nor does it allow them to access the asylum system, from which they apparently would remain barred under Title 42.
Judge Mark T. Pittman of the Northern District of Texas is a Trump appointee with strong ties to the Federalist Society and a very loose grasp on domestic and international laws and procedures for protecting children.
It’s interesting, if disheartening, to compare the “overt wishy-washiness” of the DC Circuit Judges who were timidly, “sort of” trying to protect at least some minimal legal and human rights with the “in your face,” overtly anti-immigrant, arrogant tone and ridiculous self-assuredness with which activist righty District Judge Mark Pittman advanced his absurdist notion that the White Nationalist agenda of “protecting” America from the “non-threat” of brown-skinned children merited his simultaneous assumption of the roles of President, Secretary of DHS, Attorney General, and for a good measure, Congress.
Obviously, the “judicial restraint,” supposedly a hallmark of modern conservatism, was just a “smoke screen” for the GOP’s activist anti-social, anti-immigrant, racially charged agenda. That’s not news to many of us, although it seems to have gone “over the head” of many in the Biden Administration and many Dems on the Hill.
It shows once again why “Team Garland’s” indolent, often uninformed, and floundering approach to immigrant justice under law is being steamrolled by Trump holdovers and crusading right-wing Federal Judges. And, you wonder why Dems can’t figure out what they stand for and what their “line in the sand” is!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Garland and other weak-kneed Biden officials can’t decide how much of the leftover “Miller Lite” anti-asylum, anti-humanitarian, anti-due-process policy they want to retain and defend and how much effort, if any, they want to put into re-establishing human rights and the rule of law.
One observation: After more than one-year in office, the Biden Administration is no closer to having an orderly, functional, due-process-oriented asylum system in place and ready for the border than they were on January 20, 2021! The expert Asylum Officers and qualified Immigration Judges who are necessary to operate such a system are still few and far between, and the program to facilitate legal assistance for those seeking legal protection at the border is all but non-existent.
Some GOP judges and super-sleazy state AGs have a very clear vision of the future for refugees of color. Most days, the Biden Administration can’t decide whether they share it or not. 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)Professor (Emeritus) David A. Martin UVA Law PHOTO: UVA Law
The court’s opinion carries the reader along on what purports to be textual analysis and implacable logic. On closer examination, however, it is a startling exercise in judicial imperialism. The opinion seizes on fragments of statutory text, taken out of context, to construct a presumed congressional intent that would be more to the judges’ liking. It ignores contrary indicators in the wording and the historical development of the key provisions. It makes no attempt to reconcile the supposed strict mandate with the historical fact that Congress went 20 years without really noticing—much less objecting to—the absence of implementation. The court also shows an arrogant disregard for the operational realities of border enforcement, including the sensitivity of diplomatic relations with Mexico that sustain cross-border cooperation—on migration issues as well as other policy priorities.
I can bring some special perspective in analyzing the appeals court’s decision. I have been a scholar and teacher of immigration law for 40 years, and I also was fortunate to hold policy-level positions dealing with immigration in three different departments, under three different Presidents. My years in government gave me close exposure to the operational realities at a level most law professors—and judges—don’t experience. One of those stints consisted of 30 months during the mid-nineties as General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) the period when the key reform bills on which the Fifth Circuit relies were introduced, debated, amended, enacted and implemented.
. . . .
****************
Read David’s complete article at the above link. As usual, my “practical scholar” friend gives you the real legal analysis that should have been applied by the court. Now, here’s my “less nuanced” take on this atrocious and cowardly piece of extreme White Nationalist judicial misfeasance!
Remarkably, in their 117 pages of snarky, wooden legalese, demeaning of humanity, and willfully misrepresenting reality, these life-tenured righty judges (surprise, two Trumpists, one Bush I) give no serious consideration whatsoever to the well-documented, daily, ongoing abuses of the human and legal rights of those fleeing oppression who are subjected to this heinous White Nationalist program! See, e.g., https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/shameful-record-biden-administration-s-use-trump-policies-endangers-people-seeking-asylum
Just how do asylum applicants exercise their statutory “right” to apply for asylum and other protection under U.S. and international law if they are dead, kidnapped, beaten, extorted, raped, threatened, given inadequate notice of hearing, denied their right to legal assistance, prevented from preparing and documenting their cases, and if they are fortunate enough to finally get a hearing, subjected to an anti-asylum, anti-due-process, non-asylum-expert “faux judiciary” run by a prosecutor with a majority of his “holdover judges” appointed or co-opted by his White Nationalist, asylum-hating predecessors? The Fifth Circuit doesn’t bother to explain. That’s probably because historically their failure to stand up for human rights and racial justice for those in need of protection has been part of the problem.
Also, it’s remarkable how righty judges who couldn’t find any reasons to stop the Trump regime from rewriting asylum law out of existence in unprecedented ways, without legislation, and usually without regard to the APA, suddenly take a much different position when it comes to the Biden Administration’s modest efforts to vindicate human rights and restore some semblance of the rule of law. But, that’s actually less surprising than the Biden Administration’s failure to “see the handwriting on the wall” and have a “Plan B” in operation.
Obviously, these three life-tenured right-wing human rights abusers in robes need to spend a few months “detained” in Mexico or in the “New American Gulag!” But, that’s wishful thinking. Not going to happen! These are ivory tower guys with life tenure, fat salaries, and robes who use their positions to pick on the most vulnerable in the world and deprive them of their legal and human rights based on intentional misconstructions of the law, ignorance of reality, and pandering to a rather overly political racist appeal from GOP AGs who are from “the bottom of humanity’s — and our legal profession’s — apple barrel!” Doesn’t get much worse than that!
Nevertheless, it should be clear to both advocates and the Biden Administration that “Remain in Mexico” likely is here to stay! Despite the lack of merits to the Fifth Circuit’s decision, and the Supreme’s granting of the Biden Administration’s cert petition, I wouldn’t hold my breath for relief from either the right-wing Supremes or the feckless Dems in Congress.
Given that the program is likely 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:
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, and other critical areas where the current “Trump holdover” BIA’s guidance has been lacking, inadequate, and/or defective. They can also insure consistency in asylum adjudications, something that has long escaped EOIR.
Get a corps of Immigration Judges with established records and reputations for scholarly expertise, commitment to due-process, practicality, and fairness to asylum seekers to handle these cases.
Work with pro bono and advocacy groups 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. Nolan Rappaport and I have recently written about the “largely untapped potential” of a better “qualified representative” program. Professor Michele Pistone at Villanova Law has done some ground-breaking innovative work on training accredited representatives for asylum cases in Immigration Court. But, like most other long overdue reforms, it appears to have gone over Garland’s distracted head! https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/02/02/⚖%EF%B8%8F🗽there-will-be-no-supreme-intervention-to-stop-mpp-☹%EF%B8%8F-rappaport-pistone-schmidt-tell-how-the-administration-advocates-c/
Work with the Government of Mexico and the UNHCR to guarantee the health, security, safety, and welfare of those waiting in camps in Mexico.
Then, we’ll finally find out how many of those who have already passed credible fearactually qualify for a grant of asylum under a fair, competent, timely system run by experts with individuals who are well-represented! I’ll bet it’s the majority, not the measly 2% who have received grants under EOIR’s “Stephen Miller Lite” approach!
For example, during 13 years on the trial bench, I found that the majority of those referred to Immigration Court after a positive “credible fear” finding (all of the “Remain in Mexico” applicants fall in that category) qualified for asylum or some other type of protection from removal. And, like my friend and long time-colleague Professor Martin, I’ve been working on asylum issues from enforcement, advocacy, academic, and judicial standpoints, in and out of government, since before there was a Refugee Act of 1980!
So, to me, the “2% asylum grant rate” in Immigration Court for these cases,” particularly in light of some revised intentionally overly restrictive “credible fear” criteria imposed by the Trump regime, appears clearly bogus. Why hasn’t Garland looked into the systemic defects in the EOIR system, as applied to “Remain in Mexico,” that have artificially suppressed the grant rate?
Lack of lawyers, undue hinderances on gathering evidence and presenting cases, poor notice, lack of expertise, inadequate training, and anti-asylum performance by IJs and the BIA, and in some cases kidnapping, assault, rape, extortion, and other well-documented physical harm knowingly inflicted on applicants by placing them in clearly dangerous and unacceptable conditions in Mexico are just the start!
There are lots of creative ways of making our current immigration system work better! You just need the knowledge, motivation, expertise, and guts to make it happen! So, far that’s been lacking at all levels of the Biden Administration, but particularly at Garland’s “brain-dead” DOJ. Gosh, these guys make Stephen Miller look like a “creative genius,” albeit an evil and pathological one! 🤯🤮🏴☠️ Come on, man!
As many of us have pointed out, Garland, Mayorkas, Biden, and Harris could and should have had such a system up and operating by now! Outrageous and disgusting as the conduct of the 5th Circuit has been, it’s hardly unpredictable given past performance. Every day that the Administration continues to waste by not making the necessary changes at EOIR, a court system totally within their control, adds to the human misery and injustice!
So, bottom line: White Nationalist judges get life tenure from the GOP. Meanwhile, back at the ranch of the “Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight,” Biden and Garland retain Trump’s White Nationalist appointees and enablers at EOIR and eschew the chance to create a diverse, progressive, expert, practical, due-process-oriented, fundamental-fairness-insistent, racial-justice-committed judiciary to decide life-or-death cases that affect and influence the operation of our entire justice system and our democracy in ways that no other court system in America does! The Administration’s alarming “tone deafness” is blowing perhaps the “last clear chance” to create a “model judiciary!” Sounds like something only a Dem Administration could do. Go figure!
“A federal court ruled that tworules issued by the Trump administration restricting — and in some cases eliminating — access to work authorization for asylum seekers were illegally issued and are therefore invalid.
More than a year ago, a group of nearly 20 asylum seekers along with three organizations sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) challenging these rules. The individual asylum seekers include transgender women, parents with small children, and children and adults who fled political persecution, gender-based violence, or gang and drug-cartel violence. The rules prevented or delayed their access to a work permit. The organizational plaintiffs — AsylumWorks, the Tahirih Justice Center, and Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto — argued that the rules derailed their missions to provide employment assistance and legal and social services to asylum seekers.
The National Immigrant Justice Center, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Kids in Need of Defense, and Tahirih Justice Center provided counsel in the case.
Plaintiffs challenged the substantive provisions that drastically curtailed access to work authorization, and they argued that the rules were invalid because purported Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf issued them even though he was not lawfully installed as DHS Secretary. The rules took effect in August 2020 and were partially enjoined by a different court in September 2020, but that decision left many of the rules’ harmful provisions in place. Despite these ongoing harms and despite a change in administration, the government dragged its feet arguing that the rules should remain in place “for the time being” to allow “developing administrative actions” to resolve the case.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia refused to entertain these delay requests, and rejected the government’s “interpretative acrobatics” to justify Mr. Wolf’s purported authority to engage in rulemaking. Instead, the court followed numerous other courts around the country and concluded that “Wolf’s ascension to the office of Acting Secretary was unlawful.” The court also rejected the Biden administration’s attempt to ratify one of the rules in question, reasoning that the ratification “did not cure the defects … caused by Wolf’s unlawful tenure as Acting Secretary.”
Reflections from Counsel and Organizational Plaintiffs:
“The ability to earn an income is critical to asylum seekers’ ability to survive in the United States as they pursue protection from persecution,” said Keren Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center. “The court’s decision recognizes that the government cannot neglect to fill a cabinet position with a Senate-approved candidate for 665 days and then rely on unvetted, temporary officials to strip asylum seekers of access to a livelihood in the United States.”
“The court got it right,” said Annie Daher, senior staff attorney at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies. “People seeking asylum should be treated with dignity and fairness as they pursue their legal claims. Access to work permits allows asylum seekers to provide for their families, obtain vital legal representation, and ultimately find safety and security in the United States. Today’s ruling will make a life-saving difference for our plaintiffs and for all people who turn to this country for refuge.”
“Children seeking asylum often need a USCIS-issued ‘employment authorization’ document as their only form of photo ID, to access education and other services critical to their stability and well-being during the asylum process,” said Scott Shuchart, senior director, legal strategy, at Kids in Need of Defense. “The court correctly restored access to these important documents for, potentially, thousands of unaccompanied children who will now have the opportunity to build a more secure life in the United States as they pursue lifesaving protection.”
“The right to work is an essential component of humanitarian protection,” said Joan Hodges-Wu, executive director and founder of AsylumWorks. “Work is not only imperative to economic survival; it also represents a means for asylum seekers to maintain personal dignity and self-respect during the long and protracted legal process. The court took a critical step toward upholding the rights of asylum seekers by vacating illegally-issued rules created to deter individuals and families seeking safety from harm. We applaud the court’s decision and look forward to continuing our work to help asylum seekers prepare for and retain safe, legal, and purposeful employment.”
“This decision restores the critical ability of countless survivors of gender-based violence to work, and thus be independent and provide for their families, while their asylum applications are pending—a process that often takes many years,” said Richard Caldarone, senior litigation counsel at the Tahirih Justice Center. “It also makes clear that the government remains obligated to promptly decide survivors’ requests for work authorization rather than leaving them in bureaucratic limbo for months or years. The decision takes arbitrary and punitive restrictions on work permanently off the books. We applaud the court’s decision and look forward to its immediate implementation.”
“We are thrilled that our motion for summary judgment was granted. This decision will have an enormous impact on our clients and so many other asylum seekers who come to this country seeking safety and justice,” said Christina Dos Santos, the Immigration Program director at Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto. “The Trump-era rules were punitive and cruel to asylum seekers, preventing them from receiving the right to work, potentially for years, as they waited to have their cases heard in our backlogged immigration court system. We have seen first hand how these policies forced asylum-seekers and their families into poverty and destitution. A resolution was urgently needed. We applaud the court’s decision.””
************
Garland’s poor judgement, legally deficient, ethically questionable defenses of illegal and inhumane Trump-era immigration policies continue to astound! Also, the inane maneuvers conducted by Mayorkas, presumably with Garland’s approval, attempting to illegally “ratify” one of these rules is simply disgraceful! Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell strongly and correctly rejected this flailing waste of Government resources in her opinion.
Chief Judge Howell’s decision describes a compendium of some of the most egregious evasions of rules and wasteful attempts to paper them over, by both the Trump and Biden Administrations, that can be imagined. It’s an appalling example of the failure of Biden’s “good government” pledge! Inflicting this utter nonsense on the Federal Courts and on individuals fighting for their lives and rights, and stretching the resources of their pro bono lawyers, is on Garland! It’s inexcusable!
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Congrats to my good friend Joan, AsylumWorks, the Tahirih Justice Center, and all the other great NGOs who are “taking it to” Garland and and his flailing Justice Department as well as to Mayorkas and his lousy, inept, illegal gimmicks being used to “shore up” grotesquely cruel and unfair Trump policies that Biden & Harris were elected to change! Gotta wonder what Ur Mendoza Jaddou and other folks who were supposed to “just say no” to these disgraceful policies are doing over at DHS!
Here’s what Joan said about the case:
WE WON! 🗽 The court ruled in AsylumWorks’ favor and struck down a series of Trump era rules that significantly delayed – and in many cases outright denied – work permits for asylum seekers.Today, justice prevailed.
🇺🇸Due process Forever!
Best,
—
Joan Hodges-Wu, MA, LGSW
Founder & Executive Director | AsylumWorks
Justice DID indeed prevail! That’s thanks to you, Joan, your fellow NGOs, and some great pro bono lawyers who showed that despite campaign promises, true “justice” for all persons under our Constitution resides elsewhere than at our flawed and failing Department of “Justice” under Garland’s uninspired and often tone deaf “leadership.”
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)!
