"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.
Wendy Young President, Kids In Need of Defense (“KIND”)
Reacting to this outrageous breach of the law and morality, Wendy Young, the President of Kids in Need of Defense (“KIND”) said:
“The administration’s devastating decision to strip vital legal services away from unaccompanied children runs counter to its stated desire to protect kids, some as young as toddlers, against trafficking, exploitation, and other abuses that make them easy prey for those who would do them harm. The critical legal programs eliminated today have long-standing bipartisan support from Congress, not only because they protect children from danger, but because they also improve efficiencies in the immigration system by ensuring legal counsel for unaccompanied children who otherwise must navigate a complex court proceeding alone. This includes facilitating private-sector pro bono legal services that KIND oversees with almost 900 law firms, corporations, law schools, and bar associations at no cost to the government. The value of these contributions from KIND’s pro bono partners is approximately $1 billion, a significant contribution at a time when the federal government is claiming to seek cost savings. Elimination of the services in this contract, which are mandated by law, makes it all but impossible for many unaccompanied children to appear for their immigration court hearings or otherwise remain in touch with immigration agencies. It severs key lines of communication and coordination between vulnerable unaccompanied children and the institutions in place to ensure their protection.
“While today’s development is unconscionable, Congress can act to restore these key protections. For years, bipartisan spending bills have dedicated resources to this important work. Doing so has never been more important than now. Congress has full authority on its own to remedy the crisis the administration’s actions will yield – authority it should exercise decisively. KIND calls upon the House of Representatives and Senate to work in a bipartisan fashion to mandate robust funding in the FY 2026 federal appropriations package to the Office of Refugee Resettlement for complete restoration of unaccompanied children’s legal services, including full legal representation. The safety of thousands of children depends on it.”
Many thanks to our wonderful pro bono friends at Akin Gump!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round TableLeading the charge for due process! Adina Appelbaum Director, Immigration Impact Lab Amica Center for Immigrant Rights Charter Member, NDPA PHOTO: “30 Under 30” from Forbes
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
The Trump administration has also reportedly taken aim at Biden appointees serving on the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)—the body charged with reviewing immigration judges’ decisions—by reducing the number of members from 28 to 15. As of January, the BIA’s backlog reached a decade-high record of more than 127,000 pending cases, an almost eightfold increase compared to 2015.
Paul Schmidt, a retired immigration judge and one-time BIA chairman, traced a parallel between the Trump administration’s “purge” and a George W. Bush-era move to “streamline” the BIA. Back then, Attorney General John Ashcroft slashed the members perceived as pro-immigrant. The Department of Justice later found itself at the center of a scandal over senior officials’ efforts to hire judges based on their political and ideological affiliations.
Similar politicization could be happening now. Prior to her unceremonious termination, Doyle had been flagged on a “DHS Bureaucrat Watchlist” by the American Accountability Foundation, a right-wing group backed by the Heritage Foundation. Last year, the organization announced an initiative called “Project Sovereignty 2025” to expose “high-ranking civil servants within DHS and DOJ who are likely to thwart an incoming conservative administration’s immigration agenda.”
The website describes Doyle, who previously served as head prosecutor with
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), as an “immigration activist lawyer” with a “known history as a critic of DHS” and a “lifelong commitment to open borders and mass migration.” (It cites Doyle’s involvement, while in private practice, in a lawsuitagainst the first Trump administration’s infamous ban on travelers from Muslim-majority countries as evidence of her supposed ideological bias.)
“Significant time and resources went into hiring all of us and the group had a diverse background including a number of former OPLA prosecutors,” Doyle, whose hiring process took 14 months between multiple rounds of interviews and an extensive background check, wrote in a LinkedIn post, “but what we all had in common is that we were hired—through a neutral system I will point out—during the Biden administration. This firing was political.”
Schmidt, the former BIA chairman, predicts all of this is just the start: “I think the worst is yet to come.”
Kerry Doyle ESQ Former Principal Legal Advisor, ICE, DHS Official USG Photo
Isabela Dias Staff Writer, Immigration & Social Issues Mother Jones PHOTO: Twitter
***********************
Not only does the kakistocracy treat immigrants unfairly, cruelly, and with disrespect, they inflict the same mistreatment on some of their own employees — many dedicated civil servants with expertise and honorable service.🤮
As noted by Isabela, GOP Administrations have a history of politicized hiring at EOIR and questionable personnel maneuvers going back several decades!
By sharp contrast, AG Merrick Garland actually honored all 17 of the “pipeline” IJ appointments made by his GOP predecessor AG Bill Barr under flawed selection procedures that favored those with prosecutorial or government service, some glaringly lacking immigration expertise, while discouraging or passing over better-qualified applicants with actual experience and expertise representing asylum seekers and other immigrants in his weaponized, DHS enforcement-oriented “Immigration Courts.” I was one of the many observers who harshly criticized Garland’s ill-advised and timid accession to his GOP predecessor’s questionable selections. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/05/05/%f0%9f%a4%ae%f0%9f%91%8e%f0%9f%8f%bbshocking-betrayal-justice-garland-disses-progressive-experts-with-secret-appointments-of-17-unqualified-immigration-judges-n/
While Garland did eventually make some good appointments of well-qualified jurists, overall his record on judicial appointments at EOIR was “middling at best” — certainly not the strong, effective makeover with subject matter experts unswervingly committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices so desperately needed at EOIR! As a result, ridiculously inconsistent decision-making, mundane precedents, and entrenched anti-asylum, anti-immigrant attitudes at EOIR remained at endemic levels throughout the Biden Administration!🤯🤬
When it comes to EOIR and enlightened, consistent, due-process- focused immigration policies, Dems are often their own worst enemies — a disgraceful trend that infuriatingly continues even today!🤬
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”St. Valentine’s Day Massacre Wall Creative Commons 2.0
Reprinted with permission:
Statement from 7 terminated Assistant Chief Immigration Judges (ACIJs):
*Please note – pronouns are nonbinary below only to maintain anonymity.
The terminated ACIJs are 5 females and 2 males, all age 41 or older. 2 are military veterans. 2 are racial minorities. Together, the 7 terminated ACIJs have over 105 years of public service that ended abruptly with an email sent Friday afternoon, Valentine’s Day.
1. Facts related to termination:
– Friday afternoon we all received by e-mail a PDF letter terminating us with no notice and no cause for the termination.
2. Summary of our experience: Combined, the 7 ACIJs led 18 immigration courts, and supervised approximately 135 immigration judges and 418 support staff. One was working on opening a new immigration court with 4 judges. Their termination leaves roughly 25% of the nation’s immigration courts without leadership or additional judges to preside while the immigration case backlog grows to over 3.6 million cases.
– At least one ACIJ was sent the termination email during the middle of a merits hearing (asylum case) over which they were presiding.
– 4 of the ACIJs were backups for each other’s courts, so at least 4 courts are without any clear leadership.
Collectively, we are devastated at the loss of our ability to continue in our jobs serving the public and serving EOIR’s mission to “adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws.”
*****************
Rather than a “model of due process and fundamental fairness,” under this Administration EOIR is becoming a “parody of justice.” Obviously, getting rid of high-performing, experienced judges who were also in leadership positions, particularly in the face of a backlog approaching 4 million cases, has nothing to do with “efficiency” and everything to do with weaponization of the Immigration Courts against individuals seeking to vindicate their legal rights under our laws and our Constitution!
Thanks to this group for your service, and Due Process Forever!
Hon. Mimi Tsankov President, NAIJHon. Samuel B. Cole Executive Vice President NAIJ PHOTO: NAIJ
FROM NAIJ:
Judges,
We wanted to let you know that both Mimi Tsankov and Sam Cole have decided to step down as immigration judges, effective March 1. They will both continue in their respective roles with NAIJ through the next round of NAIJ elections this summer and will be advisors long after that. This is a time of great uncertainty for every federal employee, but know that NAIJ, together with our parent union IFPTE, continues to be a strong advocate for immigration judges in all ways – with immigration court management, in the media, with Congress, and with the White House. And if necessary, in the courts.
With Mimi and Sam’s eventual departure, NAIJ needs new people to answer the call. We need your time, considered judgment, and skills in everything that we do. We work regularly with lobbyists, meet with Congressional staff, talk to reporters, write letters, get to know judges around the country, work with senior EOIR management, and provide assistance in helping solve problems big and small. Please consider joining the NAIJ Board. To learn more, reach out now to any member of the NAIJ Board.
Below are separate letters from Mimi and Sam about their decisions to step down from the immigration court.
We look forward to seeing everyone tomorrow at the Federal Employment Law presentation.
– The NAIJ Board
LETTER FROM MIMI TSANKOV
Dear Colleagues, Friends,
Serving as President of the NAIJ over the past nearly four years has been an incredible honor. And, it is with very mixed emotions that I announce I’ll be retiring, albeit a little earlier than expected, although not completely off my life plan. My last day in the office will be on Thursday, February 27th.
For purposes of continuity planning, at NAIJ, I plan to serve out the remainder of my term and will continue to work hard every minute of the day to support this group. That said, I am but one member of a dedicated team of equals that starts and ends every day working through the issues we know are creating worries for our colleagues. From advising on complaints, grievances, mediations, and arbitrations, to engaging with Agency management, our parent union, and the media, to strategizing with our support on Capitol Hill — it’s an exciting and demanding job made possible by the fact that the NAIJ Board not only enjoys the work, but finds it genuinely fulfilling to work on such a dynamic team.
Now, it’s not quite fair that a major component of this Board is retiring, too — Sam, not only our brilliant legal strategist, a proponent behind every good idea, but the warm blanket you need when things are going wrong in your court. He’s always got a plan, and will tell you honestly if it’s far-fetched or not. But, we’ve got him on the hook for many months ahead, and trust me, we’ll find him when we need him. 🙂
All of this said, we have so many incredibly strong team members – on the Board and in the field, stepping up every day to analyze the latest reg (or ‘tweet’), to identify concerns about a new Agency approach, and to connect with our members to better meet the needs of the group. We think through, again and again, if we need legal advice, if our tone is off, if our approach needs refining, and whether we need to pivot in a changing environment. We hope to get it right most of the time.
So, yes, it’s another transition in a sea of many. But, it’s also an opportunity to build out our next generation of leadership. I hope you’ll consider joining our Board, getting more involved at a local level, or just agreeing to serve as an NAIJ Buddy. It all matters and it helps us to cope with the uncertainty of this time period.
Yours,
Mimi
LETTER FROM SAM COLE
Dear Judges,
It has been a privilege and honor to serve in NAIJ leadership. My difficult decision to step down as an immigration judge was made even more agonizing by the eventual attendant loss of my work with NAIJ and all of you.
Honestly, it’s a bit of a gut punch, and I feel a bit lost. These last eight years have been the realization of my lifelong ambition to be a judge, and when I took the IJ position, I could not have imagined the richness and complexity of life and law that I would experience.
The professional reward of being an immigration judge, however, is soured by the environment in which all immigration judges work. We experience every day the top-down micromanagement of our duties and every moment of our time, combined with the bitter ping pong of immigration politics that infects all aspects of our job and steps on our independence.
This often-poisoned environment requires a strong association of judges to speak up for all of us. I have enjoyed so much playing my part in NAIJ, getting to know judges across the country, and ceaselessly advocating for all of us and for due process. I hope that one day we will have the independence that this job requires.
Writing this, I have no idea what I will do next in my career. It was just time to move on. Thank you for your friendship and support. I will remain in my role as NAIJ Executive VP through the elections this summer and will continue to support NAIJ long thereafter.
Redux of the “Ashcroft Purge of the BIA” in ‘03!🤮 That touched off a crisis in the Circuit Courts who were infuriated by the resulting sloppy “rubber stamp” denials and intemperate language from some IJs. Circuit Judges Posner (CA 7) and Walker (CA 2) were particularly harsh and publicly critical of EOIR’s poor performance. Former GOP House staff member and “practical scholar” Peter Levinson published the definitive analysis of this due process farce in his article “The Facade of Quasi-Judicial Independence In Immigration Appellate Adjudications,” available here: https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/04/02/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f-bia-expands-to-28-appellate-judges-plus-bonus-coverage-lest-we-forget-the-ashcroft-purge-of-the-bia/
⚖️ BIA EXPANDS TO 28 APPELLATE JUDGES! — PLUS BONUS COVERAGE: “Lest We Forget: The Ashcroft Purge of the BIA!” Dan Kowalski reports: This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 04/02/2024 “On April 1,
Not surprisingly, following the purge, the BIA found it difficult to operate with an arbitrarily reduced number of members. To fill the gap that they had created, DOJ politicos and “EOIR Management” began designating senior BIA staff attorneys as “Temporary Board Members” (“TBMs”). Unlike the “purged members” who had gone through a competitive selection process prior to appointment, the designation of TBMs was solely within the discretion of EOIR Management subject to approval by the Deputy Attorney General.
Only “BIA staff insiders” were considered for these appointments. There was no transparent public selection process.
Significantly, the TBMs had no vote at en banc conferences nor could they vote on publication of precedents (although they could be panel members on published precedent decisions voted on by a majority of “permanent” Board Members). While their terms of service were supposed to be limited, subject to reappointment, this requirement was largely ignored by the DOJ and EOIR Management until somebody raised it as a potential issue and corrective action was taken. Obviously, TBMs who aspired to one day join the BIA on a permanent basis had every incentive not to “rock the boat” or show “undue independence” in a way that might displease EOIR Management or the DOJ politicos who were involved in such selections.
At first, this “insider process” was kept largely “below the radar screen.” But, eventually, as attorneys started noticing unfamiliar names on appellate decisions, the process was acknowledged by EOIR Management and the names and bios of the TBMs started appearing on the EOIR website. (The BIA had previously, on occasion, used field Immigration Judges, OCAHO ALJs, and rehired retired Board Members “sitting by designation,” on panels in a manner similar to the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals. The regulations had been changed to permit the designation of senior BIA staff as an additional option.)
Eventually, the DOJ “came clean” and began once again expanding the “permanent membership” of the BIA without ever publicly acknowledging that it had been problematic and wasteful to reduce the BIA’s membership for political reasons in the first place. That expansion eventually reached 28 Appellate Immigration Judges as described in the “Courtside” link above.
So, now begins a new round of arbitrary, politically motivated, “reductions” in the size of the BIA, even in the face of overwhelming backlogs. But, if this “politically weaponized” parody of a ”court system” continues into the future, don’t be surprised if some future DOJ politicos return to the “TBM system” or start once again increasing the number of BIA “permanent” judges.
That, of course, highlights the bigger question: How does a “court system” where politically-motivated Executive Branch employees have complete control and discretion over the hiring, firing, and “supervision” of “administrative judges” pass muster under the due process clause of the 5th Amendment? Basically, both Article III Courts and the Congress have “punted” on the glaring conflicts of interest and inherent biases presented by such a “captive” tribunal.
Here’s additional coverage from Britain Eakin on Law360, quoting me, among others:
St. Valentine’s Day Massacre Wall Creative Commons 2.0
Here’s former Judge Kerry Doyle’s account of her recent firing by EOIR, as originally posted on LinkedIn. Notably, Judge Doyle is a widely-respected immigration expert, a “total pro,” with decades of professional experience, including both ICE and the private sector. In other words, she is exactly the kind of fair, “practical scholar” judge EOIR needs to carry out its real, even if disgracefully abandoned, mission of guaranteeing due process and fundamental fairness for all!
Happy Saturday! I truly hope all of you were able to spend some time with someone you love 💕 yesterday on Valentine’s Day—two legged or four 😉. Sadly, my day was a little more complicated. I was, via email, terminated by the Acting Director of EOIR as an immigration judge yesterday, February 14, 2025.
I had not publicly posted that I had started working as an IJ in the hope of keeping my head down and just getting to work and avoiding having a bullseye on me. Unfortunately, I was unable to avoid the political pink slip.
This firing occurred despite the fact that the Immigration Court currently has in the neighborhood of 3.5 MILLION pending cases and DOJ is asking Congress for more money to hire more people at EOIR! (Hint: don’t fire the people you already have!). This firing occurred despite the fact that among my peers in my court, I had the longest and most extensive experience in immigration law and had served both as a defense counsel representing immigrants, but also as the top immigration prosecutor as PLA with ICE. I therefore had a unique perspective and experience that I could bring to my work as an immigration judge.
Sadly, DOJ cancelled our training that was to take place Feb. 10-14 (irony!) for me and the others hired late last year or early this year in my “class.” They never rescheduled it and then fired me and the rest of the new class yesterday.A number of Assistant Chief Immigration Judges were also fired. I can’t say I was surprised this happened. I was expecting it, especially when I showed up in the notorious “DHS Watchlist” late last year.
Significant time and resources went into hiring all of us and the group had a diverse background including a number of former OPLA prosecutors, but what we all had in common is that we were hired—through a neutral system I will point out—during the Biden Administration. This firing was political.
Needless to say, I’m looking for a new opportunity so let me know if you have any tips!Thanks to everyone. We will persist. What you do matters!
Her urgent message to the NDPA is truer now than ever: “What you do matters!”
Thank you for your service to our nation and to our justice system, Judge Doyle! 🇺🇸👍🏼🎖️⚖️🗽
“Goin to Kansas City, Kansas City here I come!” Be there, or be square! Fats Domino (1928-2017) R&B, R&R, Pianist & Singer Circa 1980 PHOTO: Creative Commons. Here’s the registration link:
Equal Justice FROM: United Nations, Creative Commons License
Got this from a former student last week:
Happy New Year! Just wanted to share a victory with you, I had my first bond hearing today and I got it granted over ICE objections! I was channeling you the whole time!
Many thanks to the Round Table’s “Rapid Response Team” led by retired Judges “Sir Jeffrey” S. Chase and Dana Leigh Marks for spearheading this response on very short notice!
G. Reaper visits the BIA. Image: Hernan Fednan, Creative Commons License
COURTSIDE EXCLUSIVE
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside has learned that the following eight Garland-appointed BIA Appellate Immigration Judges have been “reassigned” to staff positions: Geller, LeMelle, Kludt, Reilly, Brown, Nahas, Clark, and Borkowski. A ninth, unidentified AIJ was placed on “administrative leave.”
The reassignments of these key quasi-judicial officials appears to be related to a memo sent to all agency heads from OPM on Jan. 20, stating: “No later than January 24, 2025, agencies should identify all employees on probationary periods, who have served less than a year in a competitive service appointment, or who have served less than two years in an excepted service appointment, and send a report to OPM listing all such employees to employeeaccountability@opm.gov, with a copy to Amanda Scales at amanda.scales@opm.gov. In addition, agencies should promptly determine whether those employees should be retained at the agency.”
Expect further weaponization of EOIR against due process and fundamental fairness (which are EOIR’s actual mission)!
January 15, 2025
We are former Immigration Judges and former Appellate Immigration Judges of the Board of
Immigration Appeals. Members of our group were appointed to the bench and served under
different administrations of both parties over the past four decades. Drawing on our many years
of collective experience, we are intimately familiar with the workings, history, and development
of the immigration court from the 1980s up to present.
The Laken Riley Act presently before the Senate contains provisions for mandatory detention of
non-citizens charged with certain crimes. We have been asked in the past to weigh in as amici in
federal litigation on the impact of detention on the working of the Immigration Court system. We
would like to share our expert views on the topic given its application to the Laken Riley Act.
In 2020, we served as amici in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
Velasco Lopez v. Decker, 978 F.3d 842 (2d Cir. 2020). Our full brief is attached, and we
summarize some of the points we made regarding detention below.
First, it is important to realize that non-citizen respondents in removal proceedings are not
afforded the rights enjoyed by defendants in criminal proceedings. In Immigration Court, there
are no limitations on the Government’s ability to detain respondents, and no right to a court
appointed attorney. For those non-citizens who are eligible for bond hearings, there is no
consideration of the respondent’s financial circumstances as a factor in setting the bond amount. 1
Furthermore, there is no Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, and a very limited right to seek
judicial review.
Second, when we discussed in our 2020 brief the strain detention places on an already
overburdened Immigration Court system, we cited a backlog of under one million cases. Today,
1
An exception exists only within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
which requires consideration of financial ability to pay a bond. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976
(9th Cir. 2017).
the backlog has grown to 3.6 million, an increase of more than 350 percent. Thus, our 2
previously stated concerns about the impact of more cases in which too few judges hear cases
involving highly complex legal issues, and in which most hearings require interpreters, have
become far more urgent. We also note an increase in the number of non-citizen respondents in
Immigration Court who are unrepresented by counsel. As we stated in our brief, detention creates
a significant barrier to obtaining counsel, with detained respondents far more likely to be
unrepresented. 3
Based on our many years of experience on the bench, the increase in the number of cases on
detained dockets would greatly hamper any attempt to decrease the presently staggering case
backlog. As noted, the need for interpreters can easily double the length of hearings, and increase
the chance of translation errors in cases in which nuance can be determinative. Furthermore, the
growing number of pro se respondents, many of whom have no experience with or understanding
of how legal processes work, or of what is required of them to prevail in their claims for relief,
creates additional burdens on Immigration Judges charged with ensuring that each respondent
receives a fair hearing, including the right to present all applications for relief.
Immigration Judges are therefore required to carefully explain the process, through an
interpreter, to unrepresented respondents, whose detention greatly hampers their ability to defend
themselves by providing them with very limited ability to seek legal guidance, conduct research,
or gather documents or witnesses.
Our many decades of experience has also taught us the benefits of allowing judges to assess on a
case-by-case basis the danger posed to society and the likelihood that the individual will appear
for future hearings.
As we stated in our attached brief:
Fifty years ago, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) stated that “[i]n our system of
ordered liberty, the freedom of the individual is considered precious. No deportable [non-
citizen] should be deprived of his liberty pending execution of the deportation order
unless there are compelling reasons and every effort should be made to keep the period of
any necessary detention to a minimum.” Matter of Kwun, 13 I. & N. Dec. 457, 464 (BIA
1969).
2
See Congressional Research Service, Immigration Courts: Decline in New Cases at the End of FY2024
(Nov. 26, 2024) (available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12463) at 1 (stating that
the Immigration Court backlog “exceeded 1 million for the first time in 2019…and was approximately 3.6
million at the end of FY2024.”).
3
This is in part due to the fact that detention centers are often located far from cities with a sufficient
number of immigration lawyers; representing a detailed client from hundreds of miles is often untenable.
This goal is best accomplished by allowing experienced Immigration Judges to reach case-by-
case determinations regarding the need for detention.
We hope that Senators will take the above considerations into account in their deliberations
regarding the Laken Riley Act.
For additional information, contact Hon. Eliza C. Klein, Immigration Judge, Miami, Boston,
Chicago, 1994-2015; Senior Immigration Judge, Chicago, 2019-2023, at elizakl@gmail.com.
Jimmy Carter 1924-2024 39th President of the U.S. Official White House Photo Public Realm
President With An “Afterlife”
Jimmy Carter (1924-2024), the 39th President of the United States is an anomaly among modern U.S. Presidents. He is probably better known and more widely respected for his post-Presidency achievements and work than for his accomplishments during his single four-year term (1977-81).
After losing the 1980 election to Ronald Reagan in a landslide, Carter devoted himself to humanitarian work on a national and international scale. He founded the Carter Institute. He and his wife Rosalynn (1927-2023) were famous for their never-ending work personally of building housing for communities in need for Habitat for Humanity.
Carter wasn’t just a “mouthpiece,” promoter, or financial supporter. He and Rosalynn could often be found with their sleeves rolled up digging, pounding, sawing, and painting with the rest of the crews. Individuals in the District of Colombia fondly remember him working side-by-side with community members to build housing that they still proudly reside in!
Carter is generally regarded as one of the most intelligent and fundamentally decent Presidents. However, his term was largely viewed as unsuccessful at the time. Economic woes, an energy shortage, the Iranian hostage crisis, tensions with the Soviet Union, and the Cuban boatlift overshadowed his meaningful achievements such as the Camp David Peace Accords and creation of the Department of Education.
As a career civil servant, I worked for the Carter Administration in several senior positions at the “Legacy” Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”). Although I never met the President in person, I certainly saw his facsimile signature on many official documents.
One of the first of these was a Presidential Pardon for Vietnam Era Draft Evaders that he issued shortly after taking office. As the then legislative and regulations expert in the INS Office of General Counsel, I was charged with figuring out the practical effect of the somewhat vague language of the pardon on cases of former U.S. citizens who had renounced their citizenship abroad, primarily in Canada, during the war years.
Human Rights Focus
The Carter Administration was the only one in my lifetime that made human rights around the world a key focus of policy. While it was a great and noble idea in theory, it often clashed with the political and international realities of governing during the waning stages of the Cold War.
From my “deep in the bureaucracy” perspective, the Carter Administration also too often exhibited a “tone deafness” when it came to dealing with the “old line Democrats” and Committee Chairs who then controlled Congress. For example, I was asked to draft a comprehensive legalization and employer sanctions immigration bill, but instructed not to consult with any Committee staff. Needless to say, the final product went over like a lead balloon. As I remember, the Dem Committee Chairs balked at even introducing the bill and it got a “DOA reception” from both Dems and the GOP.
Leonel Castillo 1939-2013 Commissioner of Immigration (1977-1979) USCIS Archives Public Realm
INS Commissioner Leonel Castillo: The Fall of a Rising Star
It probably didn’t help that Carter’s Commissioner of Immigration was Leonel Castillo. Immediately prior to appointment, Castillo was the City Controller of Houston, the first Hispanic-American to hold the job, and was considered a “rising young star” in Texas Democratic politics. (Yes, there was such an animal in those days.)
Unfortunately, it wasn’t a very good fit. Perhaps, it was simply “mission impossible” for an Hispanic leader then. Leonel was mostly interested in getting out, pressing some flesh, and the “big picture” of immigration. But, many of INS’s problems and challenges involved “nitty gritty” technical issues, fending off interference from a small army of “whiz kid” special assistants at the DOJ, and dealing with the always prickly Congressional Committees who controlled agency funding.
This wasn’t Leonel’s strong suit. He surrounded himself with his own group of young special assistants, executive assistants, and analysts, many from Texas, who didn’t “mesh well” with the career bureaucrats in the INS Central Office, the largely “good old boy” field management structure, the egos in the DOJ, and the “Kings of the Hill.”
Leonel never established rapport with Sen. Ted Kennedy, then the most recognizable Democrat in Congress and, beginning in 1978, Chair of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, which exercised INS oversight. Kennedy later went on to unsuccessfully challenge President Carter for the 1980 Democratic Presidential nomination. Nor did he have a good working relationship with powerful Chair Peter Rodino (D-NJ) of the House Judiciary Committee, who had been deeply involved in INS issues for many years.
Additionally, Leonel had a rocky relationship with the formidable Rep. Elizabeth Holtzmann (D-NY), the Chair of the House Immigration Subcommittee. Holtzmann was “all over INS” for what she deemed to be inadequate efforts to locate, investigate, and denaturalize former Nazi war criminals living in the U.S. who had been erroneously admitted as refugees following World War II.
At the time, I was responsible for drafting Leonel’s congressional testimony and accompanying him to congressional hearings. As he was struggling through one contentious hearing with Chairperson Holtzmann, Leonel inadvertently knocked over the water pitcher, soaking the witness table. Holtzmann reached under her dais, grabbed a towel, and unceremoniously threw it at the hapless Commissioner with an implicit admonishment to “clean up his mess.” Committee staff later quipped that perhaps it was time for INS to “throw in the towel.”
Needless to say, that wasn’t one of the “high points” in the Carter Administration’s dealings with Congress. Chairperson Holtzmann eventually succeeded in wresting control of all Nazi immigration investigations and prosecutions away from the INS and vesting it in a newly-created Office of Special Investigations (“OSI”) in the DOJ’s Criminal Division.
While my “political bosses” tended to view this as a “bureaucratic defeat,” I told them it was anything but. Not having to deal with the Chairperson on Nazi investigations on a daily basis turned out to be a huge “plus” for INS, particularly the OGC, where the “Nazi Unit” was then located. It was well worth the “loss” of the half-dozen positions to the Criminal Division, which then greatly expanded the OSI.
Hon. David Crosland American Jurist, Senior Executive, Lawyer, Teacher 1937 – 2022 PHOTO: Alabama Law
General Counsel/Acting Commissioner David Crosland
At the end of the Ford Administration, INS General Counsel Sam Bernsen was serving in the position as a “rehired annuitant.” That meant technically he had already retired and was continuing to serve on a special arrangement. The new Administration “finalized” Sam’s retirement and appointed a new General Counsel, David Crosland, a civil rights attorney from Atlanta, Georgia with ties to the “Georgia Mafia” that surrounded Carter and his first Attorney General, former Fifth Circuit Judge Griffin Bell.
Dave had once worked in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ under then AG Ramsey Clark. After Carter left office, Dave remained in the immigration field for the rest of his life. Indeed, we were both Immigration Judges at the Arlington Immigration Court, and he was still on the bench at the Baltimore Immigration Court at the time of his death in 2022.
Shortly after Dave’s appointment as General Counsel, the then Deputy General Counsel, Ralph Farb was elevated to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). I became Dave Crosland’s Deputy.
Sam Bernsen, however, landed on his feet. Although he had 40+ years of Government service, he was relatively young, perhaps 57, having begun his career as a messenger at Ellis Island in his late teens. After a short period of private practice with Larry Latif (who later was my law partner at Jones Day), he became a name and managing partner of the Washington, D.C. Office of Fragomen, Del Rey, and Bernsen, a leading immigration “boutique.” I later succeeded him in that position in 1992. Immigration is a small world!
There was an old anecdote (perhaps apocryphal) that Judge Bell once said that at INS, “Castillo represented the White House, Deputy Commissioner Mario Noto represented House Judiciary Chair Peter Rodino, Special Assistant to the Commissioner David Dixon represented Senate Judiciary Chair Jim Eastland, and Crosland represents me!”
Ben Civiletti Succeeds Judge Griffin Bell as AG
Judge Bell eventually gave way to Attorney General Ben Civiletti in 1979. Among the many “Special Assistants” working for AG Civiletti was young Harvard Law grad, Merrick Garland. His meteoric career trajectory occasionally crossed paths with my role at INS. I remember him from those days as a smart, serious, ambitious, earnest guy.
Attorney General Ben Civiletti (1979-81) with top DOJ staff including current AG Merrick Garland (5th from left) PHOTO: NT Times
Also in 1979, Leonel Castillo resigned as Commissioner and returned to Houston to run for Mayor. But, his tenure at INS proved no help. He finished third in that race and was unsuccessful in three additional bids for local elective office. INS proved to be a political “career killer” rather than a “career enhancer.”
Meanwhile, no successor to Castillo as Commissioner was ever nominated and confirmed during the Carter Administration. My “boss,” David Crosland became the Acting Commissioner of INS, and I became the Acting General Counsel, a situation that continued for the balance of the Carter Administration.
For me, the Carter Administration was one of the formative periods of my legal career. At 31, I became the top legal official at INS which involved running the nationwide legal program, advising the Acting Commissioner and other senior managers at INS, and also being the “point person” for Immigration litigation, legislation, and other issues with the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and heads of other DOJ divisions and offices.
I remember once returning to my office after a long day of meetings to be handed a stack of yellow message slips (no voice mail or e-mail in those days) by our receptionist. One thing that I always did at the OGC and that served me well thereafter was to faithfully return all phone calls and answer all my personal correspondence.
The receptionist told me in an excited voice that“Mr. Letti’s” office had been trying to get ahold of me all day, and that I had to return that call first! I puzzled over who “Mr. Letti” was, because it didn’t ring a bell, offhand. “You know Mr. Letti,” said the receptionist, “Mr. Benson Letti, (as she had written on the message slip), said it was very important.” Finally, the light bulb went off, “Ah, you mean Ben Civiletti, the Attorney General,” said I. Yes, said the receptionist, “THAT Mr. Letti.”
Russian ballerina Lyudmila Vlasova was one of the more interesting cases I worked on. PICTURE: Wikipedia
During 1979, I was involved in a notable incident involving Lyudmila Vlasova , a star Russian ballerina, in a plane halted on the tarmac at JFK. The issue was whether she was leaving the U.S. of her own volition, as her husband, Aleksandr Godunov, also a dancer with the Bolshoi Ballet, had defected and sought asylum in the U.S. (In a strange time warp, in those days a Dem Administration was actually more concerned about individuals being denied their right to seek asylum here than in “deterring” legal asylum seekers from “darkening our doors!”)
Part of the “Plan B” hatched for determining her situation was to designate AG Civiletti as an “Immigration Officer” authorized to detain and examine foreign nationals. I duly drafted up a legal document so designating the A.G. Fortunately, the situation was resolved (she voluntarily departed the U.S.) without resorting to Plan B. Several weeks later, I received the “appointment document” back by mail with a handwritten note by AG Civiletti that said something like: “With thanks and great relief it wasn’t needed!” The 1985 movie “Flight 222” was loosely based upon this incident.
Four Issues That Changed U.S. Immigration: The Refugee Act of 1980; The Cuban Boatlift; The Iranian Hostage Crisis; The INS Attorney Reorganization
Four issues stand out for me from the Carter years. The first was the enactment of the Refugee of 1980. It was the first codification and legal affirmation of our International obligations to refugees and asylum seekers under the United Nations Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
It gave me a chance to work closely with two of my contemporaries in the Administration who later went on to become “intellectual giants” in the field of human rights. One was David A. Martin, then Special Assistant to Patt Derian, the Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs at the State Department. David went on to become a famous Professor at UVA Law, co-author of leading textbooks, the General Counsel of INS in the Clinton Administration, and Principal Deputy General Counsel of DHS during the Obama Administration (then DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano was his student at UVA Law).
The other was Alex Aleinikoff, then an attorney in the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel. Alex also went on to become a professor, co-author (with David Martin) of textbooks, an INS Senior Executive, Dean of Georgetown Law, and Deputy UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
I also worked closely with Committee staff in Congress, particularly the late Jerry Tinker who was Senator Kennedy’s staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I can still remember getting a phone call one evening from Jerry saying “Schmidt, I’m in a jam. Could you draft me some legislative history for the Refugee Bill and send it over. You know what the Senator wants.” It was sort of a “hinky” request, given the state of relations between the Carter White House and Senator Kennedy. But, I figured it would be “career preserving” to give Jerry ahand, without mentioning it to anyone else.
A second major event, unfortunately coinciding the the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, was the so-called Mariel Boatlift. INS hadn’t had time to fully implement that Act before we were confronted with another in a long line of “refugee crises.” This one involved Castro’s unexpectedly and temporarily “opening” some ports in Cuba and a flotilla of small boats going from Florida to pick up friends and relatives.
The 1980 Cuban Boat lift was a crisis for the Carter Administration that has had lasting impact on U.s. immigration policy, not necessarily for the better. Official USG Photo Public Realm
We had to call upon FEMA — who famously introduced themselves as the “Masters of Disaster” — and the Orange Bowl became the initial “processing center” for new arrivals. The vast majority of those who came were quickly screened and released into the community. They eventually were able to get green cards, without applying under the Refugee Act, under the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966.
However, there was a proportionately small, yet highly visible, group of individuals who had been released from Cuban jails, obviously without documentation of the crimes for which they had been imprisoned. They were processed for possible exclusion and deportation, which invoked the asylum and withholding of removal provisions of the new Refugee Act.
Since INS had no suitable housing for “high risk” criminals, we had to enter agreements with the Bureau of Prisons to reopen some “dormant, high-security facilities” — like the Atlanta Penitentiary and McNeil Island Penitentiary in the State of Washington. Additionally, we were allowed to use military bases such as Fort Chaffee, Arkansas; Fort McCoy, Wisconsin; Fort Drum, New York, and Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania to detain those suspected of criminal activity who required Immigration Court hearings. The then “Boy Governor” of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, blamed well-publicized escapes from Fort Chaffee as a factor leading to his re-election defeat.
We also lacked sufficient Immigration Judges in those locations to hear the cases. That required an emergency effort to assemble and train a corps of “Temporary Immigration Judges” from the ranks of active and retired Administrative Law Judges and DOJ Attorneys.
The Cuban Boatlift got the Refugee Act of 1980 off to a rocky start. Many of the initial “precedents” on asylum issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) involved Cuban applicants with criminal records, not the most sympathetic group. That, combined with some sensationalist dramatic portrayals of criminals among the arrivals, such as the movie “Scarface,” starring Al Pacino, hardened attitudes towards refugees generally, while also producing some relatively restrictive initial interpretations of the Act.
Additionally, the Boatlift ushered in an era of mass long-term immigration detention. While the Boatlift eventually subsided, the phenomenon of large-scale immigration detention has continued to grow over the years. It has become a controversial “staple” of U.S. immigration enforcement and “deterrence.” It has been used, in some form or another, by all Administrations since Carter.
The “Carter experience” also hardened views toward large-scale migration in the Executive Branch, as both politicos and bureaucrats vowed “never again!” During the Reagan Administration, the new and oft-criticized device of “high seas interdiction” was used to stop further vessels from Cuba and Haiti from even reaching the U.S. and invoking the Refugee Act protections. Some individuals were brought to the U.S. after preliminary screening onboard Coast Guard vessels. But, most were returned without hearings (Haitians) or sent to the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Cubans).
A third pivotal event, which also played a role in the demise of President Carter, was the so-called “Iranian Hostage Crisis.” Most of the “action and drama” took place in and around the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. But, there was also a “domestic component.”
Then Attorney General Griffin Bell was shocked to learn that the INS at that time had no national database on the number, location, and status of Iranian students studying in the U.S. This led to new efforts and regulations to require all such Iranian students to “register” with the INS and imposed penalties, including deportation, on those who failed to do so or committed crimes in the U.S. — even if those crimes in and of themselves were not specified as grounds of deportation.
While the frustration and outrage of Administration officials was quite understandable, the whole exercise was was somewhat like “kicking the cat after a bad day at the office.” Almost all the Iranians studying in the U.S. at that time were supporters of the deposed Shah’s U.S.-backed government. The “radicals” who were holding hostages in the Embassy weren’t anywhere near the U.S.
Most of the enforcement efforts against Iranians in the U.S. became embroiled in never-ending litigation. However, the concept of “special registrations” for groups of non-immigrants, particularly from Middle Eastern countries, became part of the “immigration regulation toolbox.” It was repeated after “9-11” and is also one of the antecedents to Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban.”
Finally, my fourth main eventfrom the Carter Administration was “phase one” of the INS attorney reorganization, which created the Chief Legal Officer for each INS district in the U.S. Started under General Counsel/Acting Commissioner Dave Crosland, the second phase of the reorganization was completed during the Reagan Administration under the leadership of General Counsel Maurice C. “Iron Mike” Inman, Jr. Along the way, Mike changed the name from “Chief Legal Officer” to “District Counsel.” They were the forerunners of today’s “full service” Offices of Chief Counsel at ICE, an integral part of DHS’s operations.
Prior to Crosland and me, the INS Trial Attorneys, although selected by and under the “program management” of the General Counsel, worked for the District Directors, their clients, and were supervised and evaluated by them. Additionally, an even larger group of INS attorneys, Naturalization Examiners, also worked for the District Director, although they were selected and under the program direction of the Assistant Commissioner for Naturalization in the Central Office.
Using a plan developed by then Regional Counsel for the West, Bill Odencrantz, we reorganized the program along the DOJ’s traditional “attorney-client” model to place assignment, supervision, and evaluation of all INS attorneys under the General Counsel. This also gave the General Counsel, in consultation with the Assistant Commissioner, authority to use legal resources in any district “across programs” when needs dictated.
As you might expect, this move was met with fierce opposition from District Directors, Regional Commissioners, and some naturalization attorneys. As the “point person” for the reorganization, I became the recipient of some of the most vehement and vocal objections.
During “phase two,” completed during Mike Inman’s tenure, the attorneys were moved out of the naturalization program into the Offices of District Counsel and replaced with non-attorney examiners in the naturalization program, which, in turn, merged with the overall adjudications program.
This is much the way these programs operate today within DHS, with the legal program being part of ICE and the naturalization function part of USCIS. It would have been hard to create the DHS, with all its legal issues, litigation, and complexities, without the “groundwork” being laid during the Carter Administration, and later the Reagan Administration, for a modern, quasi-independent legal program reporting to the ICE Principal Legal Advisor.
Those Were The Days, My Friend
Looking back, I appreciate the seriousness and integrity with which President Carter and those around him took governing. (I also got frequent calls from Vice President Mondale’s office about immigration issues.) I will always remember the Carter years as a time of both excitement and professional growth. I started as one of a handful of attorneys on the staff of the INS General Counsel and ended up running the INS’s nationwide legal program and being the agency’s top lawyer, albeit in an acting capacity while Dave Crosland was the Acting Commissioner.
I appreciated and learned from the opportunities that came my way. I particularly enjoyed helping to select, form, organize, and work with the many outstanding attorneys, agents, and staff at INS and DOJ, a number of whom remained my friends and sometimes became colleagues again as my career continued into the Reagan Administration and eventually, beyond INS. The “team approach” to the law and problem-solving that I developed and honed during the Carter years stayed with me and became key to the rest of my career.
Paul Wickham Schmidt, a former immigration judge at the Arlington, Virginia courthouse, described immigration courts as the “Wild West” when it comes to security. While federal court judges typically have separate entrances, Schmidt said he’s shared an elevator with attorneys and immigrants who appeared before him.
“The courtrooms are so small. The whole atmosphere, I think, is a stress builder,” Schmidt said. “I did have the thought of, you know, it’s just a matter of time before there is some disaster.”
Reminded me of one of the first pieces I published on Courtside back in December 2016 (republished in 2023). Although I’ve been retired from the bench for more than eight years, it appears that not much has changed. And, certainly, our political leaders have failed to learn and just keep making the same horrible mistakes, over and over.🤬