U.S. Department of Justice – Page 276 – immigrationcourtside.com

PETULA DVORAK IN THE WashPost: Forget The Administration’s Fear-Mongering — There Are Many Amazing Kids In Our Midst Seeking Survival & A Chance To Contribute! These Are The Kids I Met In Immigration Court — And I Am Still Moved & Inspired By What Many Of Them Have Achieved & Their Potential!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/theyve-survived-untold-horrors-undocumented-teens-dont-deserve-to-be-demonized/2017/03/27/518dcebe-09b5-11e7-a15f-a58d4a988474_story.html?hpid=hp_regional-hp-cards_rhp-card-columnists%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.346ab2350bee

Petula Dvorak writes in her regular local column in the Washington Post:

“Their dreams — to become a lawyer, an interior decorator, a sailor in the Navy — are a lot like the dreams that other kids at their Maryland high school have.

It’s their nightmares — seeing relatives killed, paying off coyotes, being raped at the border, spending weeks in a detention center, being homeless in a new country — that make them so different.

“They’ve survived untold horrors,” said Alicia Wilson, the executive director at La Clinica Del Pueblo, which is working with Northwestern High School to help these teenagers.

The Hyattsville school has absorbed dozens of these students — part of a wave of more than 150,000 kids who have crossed the U.S. border over the past three years fleeing violence in Central America.

We usually hear about these young immigrants only when they’re accused of committing heinous crimes — such as the two undocumented students charged with raping a 14-year-old classmate in a bathroom at Rockville High School. Or when they become victims of heinous crimes — such as Damaris Reyes Rivas, 15, whose mother wanted to protect her from MS-13 in El Salvador but lost her to the gang in Maryland.

In country with a growing compassion deficit, plenty of people resent these kids, demonizing them along with other undocumented immigrants. But I wish those folks got to spend the time with them that I did. They’re funny, vulnerable, hard-working and stunningly resilient.”

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

Exactly what I found in more than a decade as a trial judge at the Arlington Immigration Court. The young people were among the most memorable of the thousands of lives that passed through my courtroom. “Funny, vulnerable, hard-working and stunningly resilient,” yes they were all of those things. To that, I would add smart, courageous, talented, motivated, and caring.

Many appeared at the first Master Calendar speaking only a few words of English. By the time the second Master rolled around (often 9-12 months on my overcrowded docket) they were basically fluent. And, they often were assisting others in the family to understand the system, as well as taking on major family responsibilities with parents or guardians holding down two, or sometimes three jobs.

I checked their grades and urged/cajoled them to turn the Cs into Bs and the Bs into As. Many brought their report cards to the next haring to show me that they had done it.

I recognized the many athletes, musicians, chess players, science clubbers, and artists who were representing their schools. But, I also recognized those who were contributing by helping at home, the church, with younger siblings, etc.

Just lots of very impressive young people who had managed to put incredible pain, suffering, and uncertainty largely behind them in an effort to succeed and fit in with an strange new environment. They just wanted a chance to live in relative safety and security and to be able to lead productive, meaningful lives, contributing to society. Pretty much the same things that most off us want for ourselves and our loved ones.

More often than not, with the help of talented, caring attorneys, many of them serving in a pro bono capacity, and kind, considerate Assistant Chief Counsel we were able to fit them into “the system” in a variety of ways. Not always, But, most of the time. Those who got to stay were always grateful, gracious, and appreciative.

Even those we had to turn away I hope left with something of value — perhaps an education — and the feeling that they had been treated fairly and with respect, that I had carefully listened and considered their claim to stay, and that I had explained, to the best of my ability, in understandable language, why I couldn’t help them. Being a U.S. Immigration Judge was not an easy job.

Overall, I felt very inspired when I could play a positive role in the lives of these fine young people. “Building America’s future, one life at a time, one case at a time,” as I used to say.

PWS

03/28/17

IMMIGRATION COURT REPORT: “ADR” In Full Swing Again At EOIR — Detailed U.S. Immigration Judges Twiddle Thumbs As Home Dockets Suffer!

ADR = “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” a phenomenon that occurs when political officials at the DOJ direct EOIR to “reprioritize” existing U.S. Immigration Court dockets to meet politically-driven enforcement goals. Results in U.S. Immigration Judges being reassigned from regularly scheduled largely “ready for trial” pending cases to “priority cases” that often are NQRFPT. Therefore almost nothing gets completed, but the court staff is overburdened and the private bar and individual respondents as well as the DHS Assistant Chief Counsel see already prepared cases reassigned to new judges who don’t have time to hear them or “orbited” to spots at the end of the docket several years from now. Results in growing backlogs even with more judges employed in the system.

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

As reported in LexisNexis Immigration https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/archive/2017/03/27/eoir-posts-new-hearing-location-details.aspx?Redirected=true EOIR has announced several rounds of details of U.S. Immigration Judges to “detained locations” as part of its “implementation of President Trump’s January 25th Executive Orders.” Julia Edwards Ainsley previously reported on this development in Reuters http://wp.me/p8eeJm-vF.

However, according to several sources, once at the “detail court” these judges often have precious little to do.

To paraphrase some familiar with the system, “The only ‘surge’ happening here is a surge of judges. There’s no surge of cases.” But, you can bet that there was a “surge in frustration” from those whose previously scheduled cases were rescheduled to accommodate these unneeded details.

Just another “keystone cops” episode at DOJ? Tempting analysis, but not so funny when you consider that human lives and futures are being affected. Also, transferring busy judges from already jam-packed dockets to do little or nothing at the border to keep the “political bosses” satisfied wastes the taxpayers’ money and undermines the credibility of the Immigration Court. That’s bad for everyone.

Most Immigration Judges I know are 1) busy all the time (unlike many other judges, Immigration Judges are expected to schedule cases eight hours/day, every work day of the week except for four hours/week of “administrative time” for case preparation, decision writing, and continuing education); 2) fanatic about wanting to complete the cases on their daily dockets.

Consequently, I doubt that any sitting Immigration Judge would have thought it was a good idea to cancel or reassign their regular dockets to do a minute number of cases as a detailed judge.

Moreover, because the Immigration Court is not “automated,” detailed Immigration Judges who have extra time have no access to pending motions that are piling up in their chambers during details. So, unlike the “home court” where a judge often can find “chambers work” to do during unanticipated “down time,” on detail “down time” is just that — wasted time.

Finally, there is the obvious question. What is a supposedly impartial, due process oriented court system doing mindlessly carrying out the President’s Executive Order on immigration enforcement to the derogation of its own already-pending cases? We need an independent Article I United States Immigration Court!

PWS

03/28/17

WashPost: AG Sessions Claims Bogus Link Between MD HS Rape & Proposed “Trust Act” — WashPost Editorial Begs To Differ!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/ag-jeff-sessions-marylands-trust-act-would-put-residents-at-risk/2017/03/27/36527088-1319-11e7-833c-503e1f6394c9_story.html?utm_term=.eb64ae97731b&wpisrc=nl_buzz&wpmm=1

“That would be such a mistake,” he said of the bill. “I would plead with the people of Maryland to understand that this makes the state of Maryland more at risk for violence and crime, that it’s not good policy.”

Del. Kathleen M. Dumais (D-Montgomery), who is a co-sponsor of the legislation and defended it during floor debates, said the measure does not prevent corrections officers or local law enforcement from cooperating with federal agents when undocumented immigrants have committed serious crimes.

“Before criticizing proposed legislation, I suggest that Attorney General Sessions take time to actually read the bill,” she said. “The Trust Act certainly does not make Maryland more at risk for crime and violence. Anyone who commits a crime or violence in Maryland should be and is prosecuted to the full extent of the law, regardless of immigration status.”

The Trust Act is similar in many respects to uncodified policies for handling illegal immigrants in place in Montgomery County and other Maryland suburbs.”

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

Sessions’s attempt to link the rape with the proposed Trust Act is totally bogus. Most obviously, the Trust Act is not in force, and might never be, so it could not have had any effect on the rape case.

But, more significantly, neither of the alleged perpetrators had any prior criminal record and neither had ever been in the custody of the State of Maryland. Needless to say, the DHS had therefore never lodged a detainer with the State, nor had the State declined to cooperate with the DHS in any way.

Moreover, even if the Trust Act were in effect, and the suspects were convicted, Maryland would honor a DHS detainer upon their release from incarceration with the filing of a Warrant of Arrest, which could easily be obtained in such a case.

Under the known circumstances, no legal action by the State of Maryland or by the DHS, for that matter, would have prevented this horrible incident. Even with the “Trump priorities” and the Administration’s expanded concept of “criminal alien” in effect, neither of the suspects, who apparently had no prior criminal involvement anywhere in the world, would have been candidates for expedited hearings. Moreover, given their family ties in Maryland and their lack of a criminal record, they probably would have been properly released on bond had the DHS tried to detain them prior to their arrest for the rape.

This situation is certainly tragic for the victim and for the school community. But, it has nothing to do with the “Maryland Trust Act.”

Ironically, prior to Sessions’s statement, the Washington Post ran an editorial pointing out that the Trust Act was actually a reasonable compromise between the needs of Federal immigration and state law enforcement authorities:

“Mr. Hogan is exercised that the bill would prohibit most localities from holding undocumented immigrants in jail for 48 hours after their scheduled release date at the request of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, so they can be transferred directly to federal custody. But nothing in the amended legislation would bar those localities from informing ICE of release dates so that federal officials could detain inmates when they walk out of jail.
Similarly, the bill requires localities to comply with any warrant to hold undocumented immigrants issued by federal courts on the basis of probable cause. Such a warrant would be easily obtainable by ICE in the case of prisoners who pose a danger to public safety or national security. Despite Mr. Hogan’s assertions, nothing in the bill blocks local officials from sharing information with federal authorities about an undocumented immigrant’s criminal record or responding to subpoenas. And jurisdictions that have decided to cooperate even more closely with the feds, including Frederick, Harford and Anne Arundel counties, could continue doing so.

The bill strikes a symbolic blow against the Trump administration by pledging the state’s refusal to help compile a Muslim registry, as Donald Trump, as a candidate, said he might do. But such a registry would face enormous legal obstacles before it ever become federal law. The bill prohibits local police from asking people on the street randomly about their immigration status, which is largely barred in the state anyway.

If adopted by the state Senate, the bill would represent that increasingly rare legislative thing: a compromise.”

PWS

03/27/17

ABA JOURNAL: Superstar Reporter Lorelei Laird Exposes The Impending Disaster In The U.S. Immigration Courts! (I Am One Of Her Quoted Sources)

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/legal_logjam_immigration_court

Lorelei reports:

“In the fall of 2016, the Executive Office for Immigration Review was busy addressing these problems by hiring aggressively, spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly said.

As of March, she said the agency had 301 seated judges and had requested authorization for a total of 399 judgeships. Those new judges are welcomed by legal and immigration groups—including the ABA, which called for more immigration judges with 2010’s Resolution 114B.

But that effort may be overwhelmed by changes under the Trump administration. Trump’s actions since taking office emphasize enforcement; his executive orders call for 10,000 more ICE agents and 5,000 more CBP officers, and they substantially reduce use of prosecutorial discretion. In his first months in office, there were several high-profile deportations of immigrants who had previously benefited from prosecutorial discretion and had little or no criminal record.

Although the DOJ eventually said immigration judges weren’t subject to the hiring freeze, it’s unclear whether immigration courts will be funded enough to handle all the additional cases. If not, Schmidt says, wait times will only worsen.

“If they really put a lot more people in proceedings, then it seems to me the backlog’s going to continue to grow,” he says. “How are they going to take on more work with the number of cases that are already there?”

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

This is just a small sample. Read Lorelei’s much lengthier and complete analysis of all of the problems, including interviews with a number of other experts and a cross-reference to the ABA’s previous work predicting just such a docket disaster at the above link.

In my view, the Trump Administration is aggravating the problem, rather than seeking to improve the delivery of due process. Given the nature of the system, they might get away with it for awhile. But, eventually, one way or another, these chickens are coming home to roost. And, when they do, it won’t be pretty for the Administration, for anyone involved with the U.S. Immigration Court system, and for the American system of justice.

PWS

03/27/17

Supremes To Hear OA In Immigrant’s Ineffective Assistance/Prejudice Case On Tues. March 28!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/raw-deal-for-immigrant-at-us-supreme-court_us_58d55dabe4b0c0980ac0e5a2

Manny Vaargas, Senior Counsel at the Immigrant Defense Project writes:

“Mr. Lee is now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reopen his criminal case to allow him to withdraw his ill-advised guilty plea. The government’s lawyers agree that Mr. Lee was incorrectly advised. Nevertheless, despite the fact that Mr. Lee has lived in the United States now for 35 years and faces deportation to a country that he has not been in since he was a small child, the government argues that Mr. Lee was not prejudiced by the incorrect advice. The government claims that no one in Mr. Lee’s shoes facing the evidence of guilt he allegedly faced could have rationally chosen to decline to plead guilty and risk a longer prison sentence if convicted after trial.

The government’s position completely ignores how important avoiding deportation can be to individuals like Mr. Lee with deep ties to this country. Indeed, showing just how paramount a concern avoiding deportation was and continues to be for Mr. Lee, he did not submit to deportation after completing his one year prison sentence, and instead has remained in federal custody for a total of seven years while fighting for permission to withdraw his plea. This is significantly longer than the three to five year term that he had been told he risked if his case had gone to trial and he lost. What more compelling evidence can there be of how important avoiding deportation can be to someone like Mr. Lee with deep roots in the United States?

Moreover, the government’s position ignores that there is a real possibility that someone like Mr. Lee, had he declined to plead guilty to the charged offense, might have been able to negotiate a different plea that would not have triggered mandatory deportation. Defense lawyers, aware or advised about relevant immigration law, often are able to work out alternative dispositions that satisfy prosecutors and avoid disproportionate immigration penalties in cases such as his. Or, failing that, Mr. Lee might have exercised his right to a trial and defeated the distribution charge.

The Supreme Court will hear argument in Mr. Lee’s case on Tuesday (March 28). All Mr. Lee asks of the Court is that it reopen his criminal case so that it can be resolved properly and fairly based on correct information regarding the critical immigration implications for him of different possible dispositions of his case. To give due respect to the Constitution’s important right to effective counsel, the Court should grant this modest request given the clearly inadequate counsel Mr. Lee received and the undeniable prejudice he has suffered as a result.”

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

The case is Lee v. U.S.

PWS

03/25/17

Trump Wins One In Virginia!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/24/politics/virginia-federal-judge-revised-travel-ban/

CNN reports:

“(CNN)A federal judge in Virginia ruled in favor of the Trump administration Friday, declining to join other federal courts that halted the President’s revised travel ban last week.

Two federal judges — one in Maryland and one in Hawaii — have blocked implementation of the core provisions of the travel ban, and it remains on hold nationwide. Drawing on a litany of then-candidate Donald Trump’s statements about Muslims during the presidential campaign, both of the judges concluded that the new executive order likely violates the establishment clause of the Constitution by disfavoring Muslims.

But Virginia-based US District Judge Anthony Trenga was not persuaded that Trump’s past statements automatically mean the revised executive order is unlawful, especially given the changes it made from the first version.
“This court is no longer faced with a facially discriminatory order coupled with contemporaneous statements suggesting discriminatory intent,” Trenga explained. “And while the President and his advisers have continued to make statements following the issuance of EO-1 (the first executive order) that have characterized or anticipated the nature of EO-2 (the revised ban) the court cannot conclude for the purposes of the motion that these statements, together with the President’s past statements, have effectively disqualified him from exercising his lawful presidential authority.”
The practical effect of Trenga’s decision is limited at this point because the travel ban is already frozen nationwide, but it adds another judicial voice in support of the legality of the executive order as it makes its way through further proceedings in federal appellate courts.
Trump’s new travel ban blocked: What you need to know
“The substantive revisions reflected in EO-2 have reduced the probative value of the President’s statements to the point that it is no longer likely that plaintiffs can succeed on their claim that the predominate purpose of EO-2 is to discriminate against Muslims based on their religion and that EO-2 is a pretext or a sham for that purpose,” Trenga added.
The Justice Department championed the news.”

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

Not much immediate impact here, because TRO’s from Federal cases in Hawaii and Maryland remain in effect. But, Judge Trenga’s legal analysis will certainly be helpful to the Government moving forward.

PWS

03/25/17

WashPost OPINION: David Cole Lays Out The Case For Rejecting “Travel Ban 2.0” — Why Judges Should Look Behind The Language OF The EO To Determine “Intent”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/judges-shouldnt-ignore-what-we-all-know-trumps-travel-ban-is-really-about/2017/03/22/4ad23ce2-0f21-11e7-ab07-07d9f521f6b5_story.html?utm_term=.e93e1d53f89f

Cole writes:

“So does the immigration or the establishment-clause test govern? The answer should depend on the nature of the government’s action. Deference is proper when the political branches draw customary and “bona fide” immigration lines, especially when there is no suggestion of an improper purpose. It makes sense to defer to immigration decisions based on family ties or adherence to visa conditions, because it is next to impossible to regulate immigration without drawing such lines. But the Trump administration has advanced no reason immigration law should be a tool for denigrating religion.

Establishing religion has never been a proper goal of immigration law — or any law. Targeting Islam violates the rights of Americans, whatever form it takes; there is no justification for giving the government a pass because it is regulating the border. When Trump signed the first travel ban, he said, “We all know what that means.” We do, indeed. And judges, no less than the rest of us, must not blind themselves to what “we all know.”

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

Curmudgeonly Observation Of The Day

As noted in his op-ed, Professor Cole wears “many hats,” one of which is as the attorney for the plaintiffs in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, currently pending on appeal by the Government in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

I’m not saying that there is anything unethical or improper about Cole writing this article. Attorneys seem to do it all the time, although more often from the private than from the Governmental side. As long as the judge hasn’t entered a “gag order,”(very rare in civil litigation like this) it’s perfectly legit.

It’s probably just me being an “old guy” and having spent two decades toiling away on appellate and trial benches at the administrative level (certainly not the exalted level of the U.S. District Court or the Fourth Circuit). Nevertheless, as I indicated in my recent blogs about extra-judicial statements by Trump and his advisors, I continue to think it is a “bad practice” for parties and attorneys with pending cases to take the argument “out of court and into the media.”

In my judicial career I presided over a number of so-called “high profile” cases. As a judge, I never appreciated seeing articles or statements in the press by the attorneys of record or parties while the matter was pending before me (or “us” in the case of the BIA).

To me, it always seemed to indicate a curious desire by the party to have the case tried in a forum “other than the one I was presiding over.” That didn’t necessarily warm my heart or increase my respect for the party.

Of course, as I judge I had to “get over it” (in the words of my esteemed former colleague, now retired, Judge Wayne R. Iskra) along with lots of other annoying “peripheral stuff” to treat the parties fairly and make a just decision on the law and facts. But, I always wondered: “Why even put that seemingly unnecessary ‘hurdle’ in front of me.”

Sure, nothing takes the place of “real life” reflections from those involved in big cases. That’s what “after the fact” articles, press conferences, law review pieces, books, and even movies are for. But, I think that it is most prudent for those actively involved in pending litigation to let their statements and filings in court speak for them. Surely, there are others in academia and the NGO community who could have written the same article that Cole did based on what is already in the public record.

PWS

03/24/17

Land Grab — DOJ “Lawyers Up” To Seize Private Property From Trump Supporters Along S. Border — Wall Trumps Property Rights!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/21/trumps-big-beautiful-wall-will-require-him-to-take-big-swaths-of-other-peoples-land/

Tracy Jan reports in the Washington Post:

“It’s going to be time consuming and costly,” said Tony Martinez, an attorney who is mayor of the border town of Brownsville, Tex. “From a political perspective, you have a lot of rich landowners who were his supporters.”

Trump, in his recent budget proposal, is calling for the addition of 20 Justice Department attorneys to “pursue federal efforts to obtain the land and holdings necessary to secure the southwest border.” The Justice Department would not expand upon the details. Of the department’s 11,000 attorneys, fewer than 20 currently work in land acquisition. Trump’s budget would double that.

The battle has been fought before. The last wave of eminent domain cases over southern border properties dates back to the 2006 Secure Fence Act authorizing President George W. Bush to erect 700 miles of fencing.

Of the roughly 400 condemnation cases stemming from that era, about 90 remain open a decade later, according to the Justice Department. Nearly all are in the Rio Grande Valley in southwest Texas.

The U.S. government has already spent $78 million compensating private landowners for 600 tracts of property for the construction of the existing pedestrian and vehicle fence, according to Customs and Border Protection. The agency estimates that it will spend another $21 million in real estate expenses associated with the remaining condemnation cases — not including approximately $4 million in Justice Department litigation costs.

. . . .

“It’s not like if you build a wall your problem is gone,” Barnard said. “We need more boots on the ground. More boats, more sensors, more drones that would be more efficient and more productive.”

It remains an open question how much sympathy Trump would have for Barnard’s situation — or that of any other private landowner standing in the way of Trump’s wall.

As a developer, Trump has wielded the power of eminent domain to make way for his properties. In Scotland, he pursued compulsory purchase to force neighbors out of their homes for the Trump International Golf Links near Aberdeen. When that didn’t work, he built a five-foot-tall wooden fence — then tried to make his neighbors pay for it.

Trump also famously tried seizing the property of an elderly Atlantic City widow to make way for a limousine parking lot for his hotel and casino. He has a consistent history supporting the use of eminent domain and praised the 2005 Supreme Court decision — denounced widely by conservatives — that said the government could force property owners to sell their land to make way for private economic developments that benefit the public.

“I happen to agree with it 100 percent,” Trump said during a 2005 Fox News interview. “If you have a person living in an area that’s not even necessarily a good area, and … government wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and … create thousands upon thousands of jobs and beautification and lots of other things, I think it happens to be good.”

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

Duh, I thought conservatives had this “thing” about private property and government intrusions.

My prediction: Trump will long be gone, and they will still be litigating, negotiating, and wrangling over the right of way. And, as with many such “eminent domain” projects, by the time the government actually spends the time, money, and loss of good will to obtain the property, the original project will have long become obsolete (as this one in fact already is) and will be consigned to the dustbin, thus making the entire exercise a costly “wild goose chase.” Talk about waste, fraud, and abuse!

PWS

03/22/17

Spend A Few Minutes With Me Behind The Bench! — Read My “Detained Master Calendar” Vignette From The “Journal on Migration and Human Security!”

Part IV: The Immigration Judge

There is widespread consensus that immigration courts are overwhelmed with immense caseloads, inadequate staffing, and lengthy backlogs (Arnold & Porter 2010). Non-detained immigrants in removal proceedings often wait two to three years to have their cases adjudicated. Cases on the detained docket move much faster. Despite the considerable time it takes to access counsel, determine eligibility for defenses to deportation, and gather evidence, the average life of a pro se detained immigrant’s case totals a mere 23 days (Eagly and Shafer 2015, 63).

In addition to facing institutional pressure to quickly move cases while immigrants are detained at government expense, judges are overburdened with the number of detained cases that must be efficiently adjudicated (Lustig et al. 2008). In 2015, immigration judges adjudicated and completed 51,005 detained cases, constituting 28 percent of all immigration cases completed that year (EOIR 2016, gure 11). Judges have very little face time with immigrants in their courtroom, and about half the time spent with pro se detainees involves requests for continuances to seek counsel (Eagly and Shafer 2015, 61). Furthermore, as administrative law judges, immigration judges have obligations to the respondents who appear pro se and are often required to step into the role of counsel in order to fully develop the record through interrogating, examining, and cross-examining an immigrant and any witnesses.”14

Below, a former immigration judge provides a snapshot of a few minutes on the detained docket.

*****

Prelude15

Wednesday afternoon, detained master calendar. Feeling love and dread. Love: Fast-paced, meaningful, live audience, prepared attorneys, challenging legal questions, teamwork, mediation, problem solving, saving lives, teaching, performing, drama, positive messages, mentoring, full range of life and legal skills in use and on display. Dread: Hopeless cases, sobbing families, watching goodbyes, “not-quite-ready-for-primetime” (“NQRFPT”) attorneys, bad law, missing files, missing detainees, lousy televideo picture of respondent, equipment failures, claustrophobic courtroom, clogged dockets, imprisoned by the system, due process on the run, stress.

Pregame Warm-up

“How many today, Madam Clerk?”

“Fourteen, five bonded, two continued.”

“Thanks, Madam Clerk. Let’s make it happen!”

Showtime.

Politeness, patience, kindness. Listen.

“Please rise, the United States Immigration Court at Arlington Virginia, is now in session, Honorable Paul Wickham Schmidt, presiding.”

Jam-packed with humanity. Live. Uncomfortably hot. Bandbox courtroom. Ratcheting tensions. America’s most important, most forgotten courts. Lots of moving pieces. Put folks at ease. Performance begins.

The Damned

“We’re on the record. This is Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt at the United States Immigration Court in Arlington, Virginia; we’re on a televideo hookup with the DHS Farmville Detention Center, the date is . . . , and this is a master calendar removal hearing in the case of Ricardo Caceres, File number A123 456 789. Counsel, please identify yourselves for the record.”

“Bonnie Baker for the respondent, Mr. Caceres.”

“April Able for the DHS.”
“What are we here for Ms. Baker?”

“Your Honor, we’re seeking a reasonable bond for my client, who has been in the United States for more than two decades. He’s a family man, the sole support of his wife and four US citizen children, who are sitting right behind me. He’s a skilled carpenter with a secure job. He pays his taxes. He’s a deacon at his church. His employer is here this afternoon and is willing to post bond for him. The respondent’s wife is out of work, and the family is on the verge of being evicted from their apartment. The oldest son and daughter are having trouble in school ever since their father was detained. The baby has developed asthma and cries all night.”

“I assume he’s in detention for a reason, Ms. Baker. What is it?”

“Well, Your Honor, he had a very unfortunate incident with one of his co-workers that resulted in his one and only brush with the law. I think he probably got some questionable legal advice, too.”

“What’s the conviction?”
“Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.”
“Sentence?”
“18 months, with all but three months suspended, Your Honor.”

“Hmmm. Doesn’t sound very promising. What’s your take, Ms. Able?”

“He’s an aggravated felon, Your Honor, under the BIA and Fourth Circuit case law. Therefore, he’s a mandatory detainee. May I serve the records of conviction?”

“Yes, thank you Ms. Able. Isn’t Ms. Able right, Ms. Baker? He’s mandatory detained under the applicable law, isn’t he?”

“Well, Your Honor, technically that might be right. But we’re asking you to exercise your humanitarian discretion in this extraordinary situation.”

“As you know, Ms. Baker, I’m not a court of equity. The law gives me no discretion here. So, based on what you’ve presented, no bond. What’s next? Are you admitting and conceding removability and filing for relief?”

“The family wanted me to ask for bond, Your Honor.”

“You did, Ms. Baker. What’s the next step?”

“Well, the respondent has instructed me that if you didn’t grant a bond, he just wants a final order to go back to Mexico. He’s been in detention for some time now, and he just can’t wait any longer.”

“You’re sure that’s what Mr. Caceres wants to do?”

“Yes, Your Honor.”
“Mr. Caceres, this is Judge Schmidt, can you hear me?”

“Yes.”

“Because of the crime you committed, the law doesn’t permit me to set a bond for you. Your lawyer, Ms. Baker, tells me that you have decided to give up your rights to a full hearing and be removed to Mexico. Is that correct?”

“Yes, Your Honor. I can’t stand any more detention.”

“You understand that this is a final decision, and that once I enter the order you will be removed as soon as DHS can make arrangements.”

“Yes, judge, I understand.”

“And, you’ve discussed this with your family, sir?”

“I just want to go — no more detention. Can I go tomorrow?”

“Probably not. But the assistant chief counsel and DHS officer in court are noting that you want to go as soon as can be arranged.”

“Your Honor, may his wife and children come up and see him for a moment?”

“Yes, of course, Ms. Baker. Please come on up folks.”

“Your Honor, the respondent’s wife would like to make a statement to the court.”

“I don’t think that’s prudent, Ms. Baker. She’s already hysterical, and there is nothing I can do about the situation, as I’m sure you’ll explain to her. We have lots of other people waiting to see me this afternoon.”

“Understood. Thanks, Your Honor.’

“You’re welcome, Ms. Baker. You did the best you could. Take care folks. I’m sorry you’re in this situation. Mr. Caceres, good luck to you in Mexico. Please stay out of trouble. The clerk will issue the final order. Who’s next, Madam Clerk?”

The “Not-Quite-Ready-For-Prime-Time” (“NQRPT”) Lawyer

“Mr. Queless, we’re here for your filing of the respondent’s asylum application.”
“Um, Your Honor, I’m sorry I don’t have it with me. I didn’t have a chance to get to it.”

“Why’s that, Mr. Queless? Your client has been in detention for some time now, and I gave you a generous continuance to get this done.”

“That’s very true, Your Honor, but the power was out at our office for a day, and my son crashed his car and I had to take care of the insurance and the repairs.”

“All right, come back in three weeks with your filing, without fail.”

“Can I come back next week, Your Honor? My client has been in detention a long time.”

“I know that, counsel. That’s why I wanted you to file today, so we could set an individual date. I’m already overbooked for next week, and I can’t justify putting you in front of others who are prepared.”

“Ah, could we just set an individual date now, Your Honor, and I’ll promise to file within a week?”

“That sounds like a really bad idea, Mr. Queless, in light of actual performance to date. I want to see the completed filing before I assign the individual date. That’s how we do things around here. You’ve been around long enough to know that.”

“Excuse me, Your Honor, but may I be heard?”

“Yes, you may, Ms. Able.”

“With due respect, Your Honor, at the last master calendar you said this would be the final continuance. This detained case has been pending for months, and you have given counsel a more than reasonable opportunity to file for relief. At this point, the DHS must request that you deny any further continuance and move that you enter an order of removal.”

“Well, I sympathize with your position, Ms. Able. I did say this would be the last continuance, and I’m as frustrated as you are. But I note that the respondent is from a country where we routinely grant asylum, often by agreement or with no objection from your office. Therefore, I feel that we must get to the merits of his claim. Let’s do this. Mr. Queless, I’m going to give you an ‘incentive’ to get this filed. If the I-589 is not complete and ready to file at the next hearing — no more excuses, no more ‘dog ate my homework’ — I’m going to agree with Ms. Able, grant her motion, and enter an order of removal against your client. Do you understand?”

“Yes, Your Honor. I’ll have it here at the master in three weeks.”

“Anything further from either counsel?”

“Nothing from the DHS, Your Honor.”

“Nothing from the respondent, Your Honor.”

“Hearing is continued.”

The Skeptic

“How are you this afternoon, Mr. Garcia?”

“Okay.”

“Spanish your best language?”

“Yes.”

“Is this your first appearance before me?”

“Yes.”

“You’re going to look for a lawyer before we proceed with your case?”

“Do I need a lawyer, judge?”

“Depends on what you want, Mr. Garcia. I can send you back to Guatemala at government expense or give you voluntary departure if you wish to pay your own way and avoid having a formal removal order on your record. Is that what you want?”

“Oh, no, judge. I don’t want to go back.”

“Then, you need a lawyer, sir. Officer, please give Mr. Garcia the legal services list. Mr. Garcia, this is a list of organizations in Virginia that might be willing to represent you at little or no charge if you can’t afford a lawyer. You should also check with family and friends to see if they can help you nd a free or low-cost lawyer to take your immigration case. I’ll set your case over for three weeks to give you a chance to look.”

“Can I come back next week?”

“You won’t be able to find a lawyer by then, sir. Take the three weeks. If you don’t have a lawyer by then, we’ll go forward without one.”

“Okay, Your Honor.”

“Good luck in finding a lawyer, Mr. Garcia. The clerk will issue the notices. Who’s next, Madam Clerk?”

Postlude

Out of court. Satisfied. Tired. Drained — like a Steph Curry three-pointer. Find my colleagues. Fresh air. Walk in the park. Talk sports, politics, weather. Visit Starbucks. Final refill. Recharge batteries. Master tomorrow morning. Fifty non-detained. Too many. The beat goes on. Walking free. Not an “alien.” Glad. Lucky. Thankful.

14 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 240(b)(1).
15 This account is written by Hon. Paul Wickham Schmidt, who served as the chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals before being appointed to the Arlington Immigration Court in May 2003, where he served as an immigration judge for 13 years before recently retiring from that position. While the names he has provided in this account are entirely fictional, the situations he describes are based on his own wealth of experience adjudicating cases in immigration court.

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

The full citation is:

Ahmed, Saba; Jordan, Rachel; Appelbaum, Adina, The Human Cost of IIRIRA — Stories From Individuals Impacted by the Immigration Detention System, 5 JMHS 194, 206-11 (2017). Co-author Adina Appelbaum is a former Arlington Immigration Court legal intern and one of my “all-star” students from “Refugee Law & Policy” at Georgetown Law. Read the entire collection of interesting and moving human stories here:

80-263-2-PB

PWS

03/22/17

NYT OP-ED: DAVID LEONHARDT: Web Of Lies!

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/opinion/all-the-presidents-lies.html?em_pos=small&emc=edit_ty_20170321&nl=opinion-today&nl_art=2&nlid=79213886&ref=headline&te=1&_r=0&referer=

Leonhardt writes:

“The ninth week of Donald Trump’s presidency began with the F.B.I. director calling him a liar.

The director, the very complicated James Comey, didn’t use the L-word in his congressional testimony Monday. Comey serves at the pleasure of the president, after all. But his meaning was clear as could be. Trump has repeatedly accused Barack Obama of wiretapping his phones, and Comey explained there is “no information that supports” the claim.

I’ve previously argued that not every untruth deserves to be branded with the L-word, because it implies intent and somebody can state an untruth without doing so knowingly. George W. Bush didn’t lie when he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and Obama didn’t lie when he said people who liked their current health insurance could keep it. They made careless statements that proved false (and they deserved much of the criticism they got).

But the current president of the United States lies. He lies in ways that no American politician ever has before. He has lied about — among many other things — Obama’s birthplace, John F. Kennedy’s assassination, Sept. 11, the Iraq War, ISIS, NATO, military veterans, Mexican immigrants, Muslim immigrants, anti-Semitic attacks, the unemployment rate, the murder rate, the Electoral College, voter fraud and his groping of women.

He tells so many untruths that it’s time to leave behind the textual parsing over which are unwitting and which are deliberate — as well as the condescending notion that most of Trump’s supporters enjoy his lies.

Trump sets out to deceive people. As he has put it, “I play to people’s fantasies.”

Caveat emptor: When Donald Trump says something happened, it should not change anyone’s estimation of whether the event actually happened. Maybe it did, maybe it didn’t. His claim doesn’t change the odds.

Which brings us to Russia.”

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

Read what Leonhardt has to say about Trump’s “Russia connection” and more in the full op ed at the above link.

PWS

03/21/17

TRAVEL BAN UPDATE: “SOPS” Continue To Flow From 9th Cir. Judges in Washington v. Trump — WSJ & WASHPOST Hang “Stupid But Constitutional” Tag On Trump — CNN’s Danny Cevallos Agrees With Rappaport That Trump Has Good Chance Of Ultimate Legal Win!

What’s a “SOP?” That was BIA lingo for “separate opinion,” a fairly frequent occurrence on the “Schmidt Board.”

There are now five separate opinions commenting on the refusal of the en banc 9th Circuit to vacate the panel’s decision in State of Washington v. Trump following the Government’s decision to withdraw it’s appeal form the TRO on “Travel Ban 1.0:”

“This order is being filed along with a concurrence from Judge Reinhardt, a concurrence from Judge Berzon, a dissent from Judge Kozinski, a dissent from Judge Bybee, and a dissent from Judge Bea. No further opinions will be filed.

Josh Gerstein explains in Politico:

“President Donald Trump’s travel ban has triggered an unusually caustic public spat among the judges of the federal appeals court that first took up the issue.

The disagreement began to play out publicly Wednesday when five 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judges publicly recorded their disagreement with a decision three of their colleagues issued last month refusing to allow Trump to reinstate the first version of his travel ban executive order.
The fight escalated dramatically on Friday with the five Republican-appointed judges filing another withering attack on the earlier opinion and two liberal judges accusing their conservative colleagues of trying to make an end-run around the traditional judicial process.

In the new opinion, Judge Alex Kozinski blasted the earlier ruling for essentially ignoring the fact that most of those affected by Trump’s initial travel ban have no constitutional rights.

“This St. Bernard is being wagged by a flea on its tail,” Kozinski wrote, joined by Judges Carlos Bea, Jay Bybee, Sandra Ikuta and Consuelo Callahan.

Kozinski’s opinion harshly criticized the earlier 9th Circuit decision for blessing the idea that courts could take account of Trump’s campaign-trail statements vowing to implement a Muslim ban.

“My colleagues err by failing to vacate this hasty opinion. The panel’s unnecessary statements on this subject will shape litigation near and far. We’ll quest aimlessly for true intentions across a sea of insults and hyperbole. It will be (as it were) a huge, total disaster,” Kozinski said, in an an apparent tip of the hat to Trump’s bombast.

That didn’t sit well with Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who accused his colleagues of trying to affect the ongoing litigation over Trump’s redrafted executive order.

“Judge Kozinski’s diatribe, filed today, confirms that a small group of judges, having failed in their effort to undo this court’s decision with respect to President Trump’s first Executive Order, now seek on their own, under the guise of a dissent from the denial of en banc rehearing of an order of voluntary dismissal, to decide the constitutionality of a second Executive Order that is not before this court,” wrote Reinhardt, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter. “That is hardly the way the judiciary functions. Peculiar indeed!”

Another liberal 9th Circuit judge, Marsha Berzon, weighed in Friday with a more restrained rejection of her colleagues’ efforts to undermine the earlier ruling.

“Judges are empowered to decide issues properly before them, not to express their personal views on legal questions no one has asked them. There is no appeal currently before us, and so no stay motion pending that appeal currently before us either,” wrote Berzon, an appointee of President Bill Clinton. “All the merits commentary in the dissents filed by a small minority of the judges of this court is entirely out of place.”
“My dissenting colleagues should not be engaging in a one-sided attack on a decision by a duly constituted panel of this court,” Berzon added. “We will have this discussion, or one like it. But not now.”

Kozinski responded by accusing his liberal colleagues of trying to silence the court’s public debate on the issue.”

“My colleagues’ effort to muzzle criticism of an egregiously wrong panel opinion betrays their insecurity about the opinion’s legal analysis,” wrote Kozinski, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan.”

Here’s the link to Gerstein’s article:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/9th-circuit-judges-feud-trump-travel-ban-236211

And, here is the link to the court’s order containing all of the opinions, so you can judge for yourself:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/03/17/17-35105_Amd_Order.pdf

Meanwhile, the WSJ Editorial Board channeled a little of the late Justice Antonin Scalia:

“The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once wished aloud that all federal judges be issued a stamp that said “Stupid but Constitutional.” Such a stamp would have been useful this week to the two federal judges who bounced President Trump’s revised travel ban that suspends immigration from six Muslim-majority countries that the Administration says pose particular terror risks.

Our view is that the ban is lousy policy, and any urgency that Mr. Trump’s first-week executive order once had is gone. But after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the original version, the White House went back to the drafting board and tailored the new order to address the court’s objections. The President has vast discretion over immigration, and the do-over is grounded both in statute and core presidential powers, which is when the Supreme Court’s Youngstown decision teaches that a President’s authority to act is strongest.”

Read the complete editorial here:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-legal-exception-1489706694

On today’s editorial page, the Washington Post made much the same point, if only a little less emphatically with respect to the Administration’s legal position:

“THE SPEED and enthusiasm with which two federal courts halted President Trump’s latest travel executive order might suggest that the revised policy is as obviously problematic as the last, which was a sloppy rush job that the government poorly defended in court. In fact, the revised policy, while still more likely to harm than help national security, is legally far more defensible. Decades of precedent instruct judges to defer to the executive branch on immigration and national security matters such as this. It should surprise no one if the Supreme Court eventually allows the Trump administration to proceed.”

Read the complete Post editorial here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-new-travel-order-is-self-defeating-and-maybe-legal-too/2017/03/17/95171a6c-0a93-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?utm_term=.7cf47133cd49

Finally, CNN Legal Analyst Danny Cevallos makes many of the same points that Nolan Rappaport has made in his articles in The Hill in predicting that the Administration legally has a winner if they are ever able to get this issue to the Supremes:

“The president is in charge of immigration. Immigration policy, by its very definition, is a form of discrimination. The only truly nondiscriminatory immigration policy would be: Everyone come in, whenever you want. Anything short of that is discrimination in some form, and it’s generally within the president’s province. This is not some village rezoning policy. This is national immigration policy, and it’s different than any of the other Establishment Clause cases.
If courts can look into this particular President’s prior statements when considering the constitutionality of his actions, then every single executive action is potentially vulnerable. A gender-neutral executive order could be challenged as discriminatory against women. After all, this is the candidate who believes women can just be grabbed by the …, well, you know. A presidential action that is disability-neutral could be challenged on the basis that the candidate mocked a disabled reporter.
While the court in Hawaii cited established Supreme Court precedent in finding a probable Establishment Clause violation, the appellate courts could still find that Trump’s executive authority prevails. Yes, the district court cited some controlling authority, but an appellate court could distinguish those cases from the unique case before it — one that pits constitutional executive power head-to-head with the First Amendment.”

Read the full Cevallos analysis here:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/opinions/trump-win-travel-ban-appeal-danny-cevallos-opinion/index.html

Then, read Nolan’s previous articles from The Hill or as reposted on this blog.

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

Overall, I think it is a good thing when there is some spirited dissent and disagreement among members of a collegial court like the 9th Circuit. It shows that the Judges are engaged and that they care about the issues, as they should. Also, dissent is often directed at other courts (like the Supreme Court), at Congress, the Executive, or at educating the media and the public at large about important legal issues. Without dissent and the resulting dialogue it often provokes, you would have “a room full of people patting each other on the back.” And, what’s the purpose of a “deliberative” collegial court that doesn’t “deliberate?”

PWS

03/18/17

REUTERS: More “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” Underway As U.S. Immigration Courts Shift Priorities And Detail Judges — One Certain Result: Each Detailed Judge Will Leave Behind A Wake Of Rescheduled Cases, Unmet Expectations, & Docket Chaos!

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN16O2S6

Julia Edwards Ainsley reports:

“Former immigration judge and chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Schmidt said the Trump administration should not assume that all those charged with crimes would not be allowed to stay in the United States legally.

“It seems they have an assumption that everyone who has committed a crime should be removable, but that’s not necessarily true. Even people who have committed serious crimes can sometimes get asylum,” Schmidt said.

He also questioned the effectiveness of shuffling immigration judges from one court to another, noting that this will mean cases the judges would have handled in their usual courts will have to be rescheduled. He said that when he was temporarily reassigned to handle cases on the southern border in 2014 and 2015, cases he was slated to hear in his home court in Arlington, Virginia had to be postponed, often for more than a year.

“That’s what you call aimless docket reshuffling,” he said.

Under the Obama administration, to avoid the expense and disruption of immigration judges traveling, they would often hear proceedings from other courthouses via video conference.

The judges’ reshuffling could further logjam a national immigration court system which has more than 540,000 pending cases.

The cities slated to receive more judges have different kinds of immigrant populations.”

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

Read Julia’s complete article at the above link.

I can’t point to any empirical study. But, my observation and experience as a U.S. Immigration Judge certainly was that the chance of completing already scheduled cases on an Immigration Judge’s “home court” docket was much greater than the chance of completing randomly scheduled cases as a “visiting judge.”

The U.S. Immigration Court is a high volume operation. Therefore, the attorneys on both sides are almost always “repeat customers” on a judge’s home docket. That gave me “judicial leverage” to complete cases.

The attorneys knew me and were familiar with my expectations and my prior rulings. Because they saw me week after week, year after year, they had every incentive to work cooperatively with each other and with me to meet my expectations and keep our “joint docket” moving on a reasonable schedule. It was in everyone’s self-interest.

A visiting judge is often confronted with attorneys who are used to doing things “other ways” and have little interest in humoring or meeting the expectations of a temporary judge whom they are unlikely ever to come before again in the future. Therefore, the chances of a visiting judge not getting the extra cooperation he or she needs and not getting the types of preparation and evidence necessary to complete the cases on schedule increases. In other words, a visiting judge is deprived of the important opportunity to establish and enforce “mutual expectations.”

Then, there is the “busy work” created for the staff by having to reset already scheduled cases, answer questions from panicked or angry attorneys on both sides, and deal with the slew of motions which such rescheduling inevitably generates.

The only way to “fix” our broken U.S. Immigration Court system is to allow individual judges to control their own dockets by scheduling cases in a reasonable manner, hearing most cases at the scheduled times, thereby establishing reasonable, predictable case cycles (NOT “rocket dockets), and setting and enforcing reasonable expectations (NOT “case completion goals” set by non-judicial bureaucrats).

Having Immigration Court dockets rearranged and “reprioritized” by bureaucrats in Washington, usually to achieve highly inappropriate enforcement objectives (rather than due process) demonstrably harms the system and the delivery of justice. The Obama Administration made things worse. The Trump Administration seems determined to make them completely untenable.

It’s time for an independent, due process oriented U.S. Immigration Court!

PWS

03/17/17

Trump Budget Calls For 75 New U.S. Immigration Judge Teams

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-budget-calls-for-border-wall-border-prosecutions/2017/03/16/eba18240-0a80-11e7-bd19-fd3afa0f7e2a_story.html?utm_term=.76f73186b931

The Washington Post writes:

“Trump’s spending blueprint released Thursday is light on specifics, but makes clear that his campaign pledge to confront illegal immigration is a top priority. Even as he plans to cut the Justice Department’s budget by more than $1 billion, Trump is asking for hundreds of millions of dollars to hire 60 federal prosecutors and 40 deputy U.S. Marshals to focus on border cases.

He also wants to boost immigration courts by $80 million to pay for 75 additional teams of judges. That would speed up removal proceedings for people in the United States illegally and address a backlog of more than 540,000 pending cases. The plan foreshadows a greater emphasis on prosecuting people who cross the border illegally, those who come back after being deported, and anyone tied to human and drug smuggling.

Trump’s proposal also calls for adding $1.5 billion to Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s budget to find, detain and deport immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, along with more than $300 million to hire 500 new Border Patrol agents and 1,000 immigration agents.

The president’s budget is the first step in a lengthy process of funding government agencies, and it’s not clear which of Trump’s priorities will be approved by Congress.”

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

My take:

Undoubtedly, the Immigration Court needs more Immigration Judges. On the positive side:

The Administration recognizes the need;

By referring to “teams” it appears that the Administration recognizes that judges can’t function without support, space, computers, etc.

On the negative side:

Given EOIR’s recent past performance, it could take the rest of the Administration to fill these new positions and expand Immigration Court facilities to accommodate the new judges. There currently are approximately 70 vacant IJ positions, most from the last Congressional increase;

There are likely to be a fair number of judicial retirements, compounding the hiring problems;

What kind of Immigration Judges would Sessions hire? He has never shown much respect for due process, fairness, or the rights of migrants. So, if he hires “Immigration Judges in his own image,” as he is legally entitled to do, that’s going to be a “due process disaster” for individuals seeking justice in Immigration Court;

Even with 449 fully trained judges on the bench, it would take nearly 1.6 years just to adjudicate currently pending cases. Piling more “priority” cases on top without any reasonable plan for deciding the currently pending cases is likely just to add to the backlogs and waiting times and further compromise due process and justice. It will undoubtedly result in more “aimless docket reshuffling” (“ADR”) which expends effort without producing any final dispositions.

There is no mention of needed reforms in Immigration Court structure, administration, and technology. Without those needed reforms, more judicial positions are unlikely to solve the Immigration Court’s deep existing problems in delivering due process and justice in a timely fashion.

Meanwhile, some sources have reported that existing Immigration Judges have been asked to be available for possible details outside of their “home” courts for up to 10 months of the year. As I have pointed out before, each time a sitting Immigration Judge is detailed, he or she leaves behind a full docket of cases which must be rescheduled.

Ordinarily, this results in cases scheduled for the near future being “reset” to dates at the end of overcrowded dockets, usually several years in the future. Plus, every act of mass rescheduling creates staff burdens that result in defective notices or other important work (such as answering phones, logging in new cases, or filing briefs and motions for upcoming cases) being put on hold.

PWS

03/16/17

Five Circuit Judges Dissent From 9th Circuit’s Decision Not To Vacate The Panel Decision In State of Washington v. Trump On Travel Ban 1.0!

Judge Bybee writing for the dissenters:

“Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105 (Motions Panel–February 9, 2017)
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FILED

MAR 15 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

BYBEE, Circuit Judge, with whom KOZINSKI, CALLAHAN, BEA, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from the denial of reconsideration en banc.

I regret that we did not decide to reconsider this case en banc for the purpose of vacating the panel’s opinion. We have an obligation to correct our own errors, particularly when those errors so confound Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent that neither we nor our district courts will know what law to apply in the future.

The Executive Order of January 27, 2017, suspending the entry of certain aliens, was authorized by statute, and presidents have frequently exercised that authority through executive orders and presidential proclamations. Whatever we, as individuals, may feel about the President or the Executive Order,1 the President’s decision was well within the powers of the presidency, and “[t]he wisdom of the policy choices made by [the President] is not a matter for our consideration.” Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 165 (1993).

1 Our personal views are of no consequence. I note this only to emphasize that I have written this dissent to defend an important constitutional principle—that the political branches, informed by foreign affairs and national security considerations, control immigration subject to limited judicial review—and not to defend the administration’s policy.

This is not to say that presidential immigration policy concerning the entry of aliens at the border is immune from judicial review, only that our review is limited by Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)—and the panel held that limitation inapplicable. I dissent from our failure to correct the panel’s manifest error.”

Read Judge Bybee’s full dissent here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/03/15/17-35105 en banc.pdf

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

I had speculated at the time a Judge of the 9th Circuit requested a vote on rehearing en banc that it was part of a strategy not intended to actually force such review, but rather to give those Judges who disagreed with the 3-Judge panel a chance to publicly express dissenting views. This dissent will be published.

Nevertheless, with only five of the 29 or so active Judges on the 9th Circuit joining Judge Bybee’s dissent, the prospect for the Administration obtaining any relief there from the TRO in State of Hawaii v. Trump enjoining Travel Ban 2.0 appears dim.

Notwithstanding President Trump’s claim that he will litigate Travel Ban 2.0 to the Supreme Court, that might not be so easy, particularly for the foreseeable future. The Supreme Court is not obligated to take any case just because the President wishes it. The Court has discretion.

In exercising that discretion (known as a “petition for certiorari”) the Court generally does not like to intervene at the TRO or Preliminary Injunction stage, before a full record is developed. Also, the current eight member configuration, presenting the possibility of a tie vote, makes it less likely that the Court would take the case now.

And, one of the reasons for the Court taking such a case — a split in Circuits — doesn’t exist here. The Administration has consistently lost on the issue except for a single District Court ruling from Massachusetts.

Consequently, the Administration might have to wait for a full trial on the merits of the plaintiffs’ case, a process that would take weeks at a minimum and quite possibly months or even years. Even then, there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court would take the case, or that even with Justice Gorsuch on the bench the Administration’s position would prevail.

Finally, I note that much of Judge Bybee’s dissent echoes the views expressed by Nolan Rappaport in several articles from The Hill posted on this blog. The most recent of those, relating to State of Hawaii v. Trump, can be found here:

http://wp.me/p8eeJm-tV

PWS

03/16/17

EAST BAY EXPRESS: Are U.S. Immigration Court Hearings For Unrepresented Individuals Unconstitutional? Darwin BondGrahm Seems To Think So — Perhaps Darwin Is Right!

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/inside-immigration-court-are-deportation-hearings-in-the-bay-area-unconstitutional/Content?oid=5642504

Darwin BondGraham reports in a profile of justice at the U.S. Immigration Court in San Francisco, CA:

“Ilyce Shugall can rattle off a similarly long list of due-process problems. The directing attorney of Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, Shugall is one of a couple dozen pro-bono lawyers who try to provide counsel to a fraction of the people facing deportation in San Francisco.

“Procedural protections don’t really exist, despite the consequences of banishment,” she said at a recent legal symposium held by the Thelton E. Henderson Center for Social Justice in Berkeley. “There’s no right to an attorney, but the government is represented in every case by an ICE attorney.”

As Shugall sees it, the ICE attorney also has a kind of home-field advantage: Being in the same courtrooms day-in, day-out, allows an attorney to establish better rapport with judges.

And the judges and ICE attorneys all have the same boss: The President of the United States.

The immigration judges are employees of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which is overseen by the attorney general — they’re not members of the independent judicial branch of government. The ICE attorneys work for the Department of Homeland Security.

Over her career practicing immigration law, Shugall said she’s seen ICE attorneys frequently miss filing deadlines without consequences; file motions on the day of a hearing, preventing review by the defense; and withhold records in a case from the person being targeted for deportation, thereby forcing them to file a burdensome Freedom of Information Act request to get the documents.

She’s also seen extended detention result, countless times, in what Mr. Gonzales apparently did in Judge Murry’s courtroom this past December: Give up on his case and beg to be deported, just to get escape the misery of jail.”

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

The full article, which I found through ImmigrationProf Blog, is well worth a read.

I think that the Administration’s ill-advised “pedal to the metal” detention and removal plans, combined with elimination of funding for various Government sponsored outreach, information, and self-help programs is very likely to bring the due process weaknesses of the current U.S. Immigration Court system to a head.

I would not be surprised if a U.S. District Judge somewhere issues a TRO preventing the Government from proceeding in certain types of cases unless the individual is represented. After all, the Government was recently blocked in the 9th Circuit from proceeding against incompetent individuals without establishing some viable system for determining competency and representing those determined to be incompetent.

I also predict that the Administration’s ill-conceived plan to “jack up” detention, particularly by using private facilities which have been determined to have a greater incidence of problematic conditions, is likely to result in major “conditions of detention” litigation and, perhaps, further intervention by the Article III Courts.

Rather than studying the situation and looking for ways to fix our broken immigration justice system so that individuals receive the due process to which they are entitled, the Trump Administration seems determined to make matters worse by turning up the volume. That’s likely to have unhappy consequences not only for the individuals, but also for the Administration.

PWS

03/13/17

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: