"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
BIA Asylum Panel In Action — After three years of ignoring experts on how to fix asylum and the border, the Biden Administration appears ready to join GOP nativists in throwing vulnerable legal asylum seekers and their supporters “under the bus.” Cartels and criminal smugglers undoubtedly are looking forward to “filling the gap” left by the demise of the legal asylum system! They will be “the only game in town’” for those seeking life-saving refuge! There is no record of increased cruelty and suspension of the rule of law “solving” migration flows, although an increase in exploitation and death of migrants seems inevitable. Perhaps, that’s just “collateral damage” to U.S. politicos. Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
[T]he Board found that Sebastian-Sebastian failed to demonstrate a nexus between her particular social groups and the harm she faced. In its denial of CAT protection, the Board found that Sebastian-Sebastian failed to demonstrate that she is more likely than not to be tortured if removed to Guatemala. On appeal, Sebastian-Sebastian argues that the Board’s conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Because the Board’s failure to make necessary findings as to the asylum and withholding of removal claims is erroneous, but its conclusion as to Sebastian-Sebastian’s CAT claim is supported by substantial evidence, we GRANT Sebastian-Sebastian’s petition for review in part, DENY in part, VACATE the Board’s denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal, and REMAND to the Board for reconsideration consistent with our opinion.”
[Hats off to Jaime B. Naini and Ashley Robinson! N.B., the motion for stay of removal was denied. I have a call in to the attorneys to find out if she was removed…]
Rather than looking for ways to restrict or eliminate asylum, Congress and the Administration should be concerned about quality-control and expertise reforms in asylum adjudication, including a long-overdue independent Article I Immigration Court! Once again, the BIA violates Circuit precedent to deny asylum.
The answer to systemically unfair, (intentionally) unduly restrictive interpretations, and often illegal treatment of asylum seekers by the USG should not be to further punish asylum seekers! It should be fixing the asylum adjudication system to comply with due process, fundamental fairness, best practices, and professionalism!
Casey Carter Swegman Director of Public Policy at the Tahirih Justice Center PHOTO: Tahirih Justice Center
Here’s a statement from the Tahirih Justice Center about the disgraceful “negotiations” now taking place in Congress:
The Tahirih Justice Center is outraged by the news that the administration appears willing to play politics with human lives. These attacks on immigrants and people seeking asylum represent not simply a broken promise, but a betrayal and we urge the President and Congress to reverse course.
“I am gravely concerned that, if passed, these policies will further trap and endanger immigrant survivors of gender-based violence. Selling out asylum seekers and immigrant communities under the guise of ‘border security’ in order to pass a supplemental funding package is absolutely unacceptable,” said Casey Carter Swegman, Director of Public Policy at the Tahirih Justice Center. “And we know the impact of these cruel, deterrence-based policies will land disproportionately on already marginalized immigrants of color. I urge the White House and Congress not to sell out immigrants and asylum seekers for a funding deal.”
Every day, people fleeing persecution – including survivors of gender-based violence – arrive at our border having escaped unspeakable violence. Raising the fear standard, enacting a travel ban, putting a cap on asylum seekers, and expanding expedited removal nationwide (to name just a few proposals that have been floated in recent days) will do nothing to solve the challenges at the southern border and serve only to create more confusion, narrow pathways to humanitarian relief, increase the risk of revictimization and suffering, and punish immigrants seeking safety and a life of dignity.
These kinds of proposals double down on the climate of fear that many immigrants in this country already face on a day-to-day basis and will disproportionately impact Black, Brown and Indigenous immigrant communities.Immigrants should not be met with hostile and unmanageable policies that violate their humanity as well as their legal rights. We can and must do better.
These are “negotiations” in which those whose legal rights and humanity are being “compromised” (that is, tossed away) have no voice at the table as politicos ponder what will best suit their own interests.
“Hipppity, hippity, hop! Deny, deny, deny! For any reason, in any season, or for no reason at all! Hippity, hippity, hop!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
Fwd: CA2 Vacates Matter of Y-I-M-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 724 (B.I.A. 2019)
“Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ukraine, seeks review of a December 12, 2019 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Based on ostensible inconsistencies in Petitioner’s testimony and a purported failure to submit corroborating evidence, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) entered an adverse credibility finding. However, we conclude that the adverse credibility finding is not supported by substantial evidence and that the IJ unjustifiably refused to allow Petitioner to present readily available witness testimony, thereby depriving him of a full and fair hearing. As such, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
First, many congrats to NDPA super lawyer John Giammatteo! Obviously (to everyone but Garland), experts like John belong on the Immigration Bench, not just in front of it!
Something is horribly wrong with a system that designates fabrications and denials of due process as “precedents” to guide other judges! Something is also disturbingly wrong with an Attorney General, a former Article III Federal Appeals Judge no less, who has failed to bring in real expert progressive judges to run EOIR, redo defective precedents as proper legal guidance, eradicate the disgraceful anti-asylum bias, and enforce due process, fundamental fairness, and decisional excellence in America’s most important “retail level” court system!
There currently are opportunities for better judges to get into the system, start eradicating bad judging like this, and replacing it with expert, due process focused, efficient, “real judging” by better judges. Get those applications in!
The “message” of Matter of Y-I-M- is clear: make it up, ignore it, cut it off, hustle off to lunch — whatever it takes to “get to no” — we’ll have your back!
“The decision is scorching,” says Dan Kowalski. And, well it should be! This is a disgusting,institutionalized travesty of justice 🤮, in life or death cases ☠️, going on right under AG Merrick Garland’s nose! It’s undermining American democracy! And, it’s totally preventable!
Remarkably, the BIA selected this pathetically bad adjudication — one that raises questions as to whether anyone at EOIR even read the record — combined with a horrendous denial of due process, and an IJ who obviously felt “empowered” to elevate time over fairness and substance — as a precedent! That means it was supposed to be a “model” for IJs — essentially a message that you should go ahead and deny asylum for any reason — even if largely fabricated — and the BIA will give you a “pass.” This actually raises some serious ethical problems with the whole EOIR mess and Garland’s indolent stewardship over this critical part of our justice system!
The IJ actually said this: “So, don’t get frustrated if I shutdown your arguments. It’s just that —we’re now at 12:00, and we’re nowhere . . . near done in the case.”
Amazingly, this IJ “touted” that cutting off relevant testimony, actually “helped” the respondent by giving him more possible reasons to appeal! Does this sound like a system that encourages “efficiency” and “excellence?”
No wonder they have backlogs coming out the wazoo! Yet, rather than slamming this IJ and using it as a precedent of how NOT to handle an asylum case, the BIA basically “greenlighted” an egregiously defective performance and made it a “model” for other judges! Outrageous!
It’s an example of why this system needs progressive, due process oriented leadership and radical reforms! Now!
A competent IJ could have granted this corroborated case and still have made their “noon lunch date!” Recognizing and institutionalizing consistent grants of relief is what “moves” the Immigration Court system without violating anyone’s rights and without tying up the Article III Courts!
Instead, because of the unchecked “culture of denial” and the incompetence allowed to flourish at EOIR, after four years this case is still bouncing around the system. That’s a key reason why EOIR is dysfunctional and their backlogs are out of control!
Correct, positive precedents establishing and enforcing best practices are essential to due process and fundamental fairness — once, but no longer, EOIR’s “vision.”
One of the “uninitiated” might logically expect that having exposed and eliminated this disingenuous “any reason to deny asylum” precedent, advocates for due process and fundamental fairness have “won this battle.” Not so in the “parallel universe” of Garland’s EOIR!
As pointed out by Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table:
If they follow past practice, the BIA will continue to apply this decision as a model for IJs in every circuit but the 2d.
Come on, man!
The author of the Second Circuit decision, U.S. District Judge Gary Brown has an interesting background, according to “Sir Jeffrey:”
Also, the judge who wrote the decision for the panel, Gary Brown, is a Trump appointee to the Eastern District of NY sitting by designation on this panel. When John’s argument was being mooted, we actually discovered that Judge Brown is also a renowned magician, who invented an effect called the Viking Spirit Trumpet.
Actually, Judge Brown was nominated for the bench by both President Obama and President Trump! Wonder if he has any magic spells up his sleeve that would make EOIR disappear and reappear as a real, due-process-focused court!
Magic Hat & Wand Could U.S. District Judge Gary Brown, also a famous magician, conjure up a spell that would make due process “reappear” at EOIR? PHOTO: Public Realm
Amazing how busy Article III Judges can take the time to read and understand records in asylum cases, but the BIA can’t! This system is broken!
Meaningful reform starts with a new, better qualified, expert BIA focused solely on due process, fundamental fairness, and decisional excellence. It’s very straightforward! Why doesn’t Garland “get it?” How many more will be wrongfully denied while our disconnected AG floats around in his surreal, yet deadly, “intellectual never never land?”
Lost in an intellectual fog, and far removed from the “retail level of justice,” AG Merrick Garland can’t be bothered with the injustices heaped on asylum seekers and their dedicated representatives in his dysfunctional, deny for any reason, Immigration Courts! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Every time I read this decision I get more and more outraged about the continuing horrors of EOIR! Attorneys could face sanctions for making material misrepresentations in briefs. Yet, nothing happens to EOIR Judges who “make it up as they go along” to deny asylum!
I was told by some withknowledge of the EOIR disaster that, at least until recently, those at higher levels of the Administration who (curiously) are “pulling the strings” at EOIR were unaware that Immigration Judges are not automatically “packaged” with Judicial Law Clerks! Duh! Anybody who has actually worked at the “line level” of EOIR as well as a whole bunch of widely available reports and studies could have told them that!
So, according to my sources, in at least some locations “flooded” with new IJs, the already poor IJ to JLC ratio has gotten much, much worse!
Just another piece of “low hanging fruit” that Garland has failed to “harvest.” I’ve also been told that problems with grade levels discourage individuals from making a career out of working in the law clerk program.
All of this makes it critical that new Immigration Judges be experts in immigration law with “hands on” experience. So, NDPA practical scholars, get those applications for judgeships in NOW! Indolence about due process at the top creates opportunities for spreading and institutionalizing due process at the “retail level!” But, that requires great judges with the right experience. So, don’t wait! Apply today!🗽⚖️👨🏾⚖️👨🏼⚖️👩🏾⚖️🧑🏻⚖️
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
How much of Ukraine will look like this by war’s end? Photo from Previous Russia-Ukraine War by Wojciech Zmudzinski Creative Commons License
Weekly Briefing
briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The content of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
CONTENTS (jump to section)
PRACTICE ALERTS
NEWS
LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES
RESOURCES
EVENTS
PRACTICE ALERTS
Virtual EOIR Registration: For new attorney registration, practitioners are no longer required to go to the court personally to show an ID. However, they still may appear personally. To coordinate identification verification please contact: Tina.Barrow@usdoj.gov or by phone at 717-443-9157.
Adjustment-Ready Cases: DHS is filing motions for dismissal for about 1,000 cases nationwide for Adjustment-Ready Cases (ARCs) to allow for pursuit of relief before USCIS. If you don’t want the case dismissed, timely file your opposition.
ICE Appointment Scheduler: Now available in Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Haitian Creole in addition to English.
Hill: Immigration restrictionists celebrated that the bill includes funding increases for ICE and Customs and Border Protection, but worried that the Biden administration will not use those funds to implement the Trump-style strict enforcement measures they favor…“The budget gives ICE money to fund over 5,000 more beds than proposed in funding bills introduced last year in both the House and Senate. These funding levels directly contradict commitments made by the Biden administration and members of Congress to reduce the immigration detention system,” Mary Meg McCarthy, executive director of the National Immigrant Justice Center, said in a release.
WaPo: Advocates for immigrants said they welcomed many of the Biden administration’s early changes, such as ending the travel ban and increasing the number of refugees allowed into the United States. But they said the most recent spending bill increases funding for immigration enforcement and complained that Biden has not kept his campaign promise to end privately run detention, which accounts for the majority of the ICE system.
NYT: The tension has also resonated inside the White House, where senior officials have been anxious that unwinding the Trump-era border restrictions would open the United States to an increase in illegal crossings at the southern border and fuel Republican attacks that Mr. Biden is too lenient on illegal immigration.
NYT: More than 4,100 Russians crossed the border without authorization in the 2021 fiscal year, nine times more than the previous year. This fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, the numbers are even higher — 6,420 during the first four months alone.
RollCall: Now, embassies have shuttered in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. That could increase pressure on other consular posts in the region already feeling the weight of a visa backlog of nearly half a million cases.
AP: All Florida government agencies would be barred from doing business with transportation companies that bring immigrants to the state who are in the country illegally under a bill sent to Gov. Ron DeSantis on Wednesday.
Miami Herald: Nearly 200 Haitian migrants were returned to Haiti on Friday by the U.S. Coast Guard after their bid to reach U.S. shores ended with their overloaded sailboat running aground behind a wealthy North Key Largo resort in the Upper Florida Keys and some of their compatriots making a harried dash to freedom in the choppy waters. See also Black Immigrants to the U.S. Deserve Equal Treatment.
NYT: Although the bureau did not say how many people it missed entirely, they were mostly people of color, disproportionately young ones. The census missed counting 4.99 of every 100 Hispanics, 5.64 of every 100 Native Americans and 3.3 of every 100 African Americans.
Buzzfeed: Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents obtained millions of people’s financial records as part of a surveillance program that fed the information to a database accessed by local and federal law enforcement agencies, according to a letter sent Tuesday by Sen. Ron Wyden to the Department of Homeland Security inspector general requesting an investigation into whether the practice violated the US Constitution.
Forbes: “International student enrollment at U.S. universities declined 7.2% between the 2016-17 and 2019-20 academic years, before the start of the Covid-19 pandemic,” according a new analysis from the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP). “At the same time, international student enrollment at Canadian colleges and universities increased 52% between the 2016-17 and 2019-20 academic years, illustrating the increasing attractiveness of Canadian schools due to more friendly immigration laws in Canada, particularly rules enabling international students in Canada to gain temporary work visas and permanent residence.”
Law360: A Salvadoran woman urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review an Eleventh Circuit decision greenlighting her deportation based on a decades-old removal order issued after she voluntarily left the country, saying the ruling conflicted with Fifth and Seventh Circuit precedents.
Law360: The Second Circuit on Thursday revived an asylum application from a man who says he fled political violence in Guinea, finding a string of errors in an immigration judge’s determination that he wasn’t credible.
LexisNexis: Dissent: I respectfully dissent from this court’s denial of rehearing en banc on the issue of whether to grant Chevron deference to the Board of Immigration’s (“Board”) recent interpretation of § 1101(a)(43)(S), providing that an aggravated felony under the INA is “an offense relating to the obstruction of justice, perjury or subornation of perjury, or bribery of a witness.” …Namely, this decision is the first and only to uphold the Board’s 2018 redefinition as reasonable—repudiating the Ninth Circuit’s 2020 decision. Accordingly, by no longer requiring a nexus element, this opinion expands the list of possible state crimes that could trigger immigration deportation consequences for many persons who may not have been otherwise subject to deportation. This is a sizeable impact for many people in our country.
LexisNexis: The Government indicates that the matter should be remanded, in part, to the BIA for consideration of her request for voluntary departure in light of Niz-Chavez. Thus, the petition for review is granted as to the stop-time issue, and this matter is remanded to the BIA for consideration under Niz-Chavez and other relevant precedents.
LexisNexis: The Board granted one extension but denied a second, suggesting that Oluwajana instead submit his brief with a motion seeking leave to file it late. When he did so, less than two weeks after the submission deadline, the Board denied the motion in a cursory-and factually erroneous-footnote. And having rejected the brief, the Board upheld the removal order without considering Oluwajana’s allegations of error by the immigration judge. Based on the undisputed circumstances of this case, we conclude that the Board abused its discretion by unreasonably rejecting Oluwajana’s brief.
Law360: The Ninth Circuit ordered the Board of Immigration Appeals on Wednesday to decide if an immigrant’s rape conviction bars deportation relief, with a dissenting judge saying the decision only delays the “unpalatable” conclusion that the man can seek a removal waiver.
BIA: When the Department of Homeland Security raises the mandatory bar for filing a frivolous asylum application under section 208(d)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2018), an Immigration Judge must make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law on whether the requirements for a frivolousness determination under Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 151 (BIA 2007), have been met.
LexisNexis: Additionally, the respondents assert that despite informing immigration officials of their intent to get a new attorney and “sort out [their] case,” ICE officials told them that they were not priorities for deportation and there was nothing more they could do with respect to their case (Respondents’ Mot., Tab G). Accordingly, under these circumstances, we will equitably toll the filing deadline for the respondents’ motion to reopen.”
Law360: An Illinois federal judge closed the book on Chicago’s lawsuit challenging certain Trump-era conditions for recipients of a federal public safety grant on Tuesday when he put the final touches on his judgment blocking conditions for receiving the grant to resolve the case’s outlying issues.
LexisNexis: Defendant executed an I-864 Affidavit of Support; therefore, he is contractually obligated to provide Plaintiff and J.K.M.F. any support necessary to maintain their household at an income that is at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. Plaintiff has received no financial support from Defendant since fleeing to a shelter on October 21, 2021…Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged a meritorious claim against Defendant for breaching his contractual duty.
Law360: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s New York office will overhaul its policy on people suspected of civil immigration offenses while on bond, settling claims it detained suspects beyond what the law allows without a chance to post bail.
Law360: A D.C. district court ordered the federal government to disclose the names of border officers who screened migrants’ asylum claims under a pilot program, saying Friday that asylum-seekers needed to know if they were unwittingly placed in the since-suspended project.
Law360: A woman’s suit contending she was wrongly deprived of pandemic relief payments from the IRS because of her marriage to an immigrant is barred by a federal law prohibiting court challenges that restrain tax collection, a Maryland federal court ruled.
USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that it is updating the USCIS Policy Manual to consider deferred action and related employment authorization for noncitizens who have an approved Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant, for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) classification but who cannot apply to adjust status to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR) because a visa number is not available.
AILA: DOS provided guidance for nationals in Ukraine seeking to enter the United States. The guidance clarifies information on nonimmigrant visas, immigrant visas, COVID-19 entry requirements, humanitarian parole, refugee status, and more.
AILA: EOIR updated appendix O of the policy manual with adjournment code 74. The reason is “Public Health,” and the definition is “Adjourned for public health reasons.”
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the group page and request to be added.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
The “Top News Section” is a good rundown of the Biden Administration’s “mixed bag” on immigration policy, particularly as it relates to our largely defunct asylum system and the refugee system (still reeling from Trump-era “deconstruction”) that does not appear to be prepared for the inevitable flow of Ukrainian refugees. It also highlights some of the lingering damage to our democracy (e.g., racially biased census undercount) done by the Trump regime and its toady enablers.
My Take: Ukrainian Refugees & The U.S. Response
So far, largely meaningless political rhetoric from the Administration concerning Ukrainian refugees has been predictably “welcoming.” But, the actions to date have amounted to nothing more than taking the obvious step of granting TPS to Ukrainians actually here.
That does little or nothing to address the nearly 3 million refugees who have fled Ukraine in recent weeks. If the Administration has a coherent plan for admitting our share of those refugees and resuming processing of Ukrainians and all other refugees seeking asylum at the border, they have not announced it.
For example, despite U.S. and worldwide condemnation of China’s treatment of Uyghurs — some characterizing it as “genocide” — the Administration has done nothing to speed the processing of the very limited number of Uyghur refugees languishing in our still largely dysfunctional asylum system. If, as I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, the Administration is unable to address “low hanging fruit” like Uyghurs and Immigration Court reform, in a bold and timely matter, how are they going to respond to more difficult human rights issues?
As this op-ed in today’s NY Times points out, “generous” responses to large-scale refugee situations are often short-lived. As refugees flows inevitably continue and grow, the initial positive responses too often “morph” into xenophobia, nativism, racism, culture wars, and restrictionism.https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/15/opinion/ukraine-refugee-crisis.html
Ukrainian refugees have two potential “advantages” over those from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Venezuela, Ethiopia, DRC, and the Northern Triangle that could help them realize “more durable” protection. They are 1) mostly White Europeans, and 2) mostly Christian.
Neither of these is a legally recognized international criterion for defining refugees. Fact is, however, that they were not universally descriptive of those aforementioned groups who have often received less enthusiastic receptions from Western democracies. As a practical matter, “cultural attitudes” influence the Western World’s acceptance of refugees, probably to a greater extent than the actual dangers which those refugees face in the lands from which they have fled.
But, that has also been true in Haiti, Syria, Central America, the DRC and many other trouble spots. It has made little positive difference to the U.S. The Trump regime, led by Uber racist-misogynist refugee deniers “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and “Gauleiter” Stephen Miller actually went out of their way to target the most vulnerable women and children fleeing persecution for further abuse.
And, to date, the Biden Administration’s promise to do better and regularize the treatment of those fleeing gender-based violence has been a huge “nothingburger.” Whatever happened to those promised “gender-based regulations” and the “common-sense recommendations” to replace the restrictionist holdover, bad-precedent-setting BIA with real judges who are experts in gender-based asylum?
The flow of refugees from Ukraine, and a much smaller (at this point) flight of dissidents from Russia, has already “exceeded projections” and is not likely to diminish in the coming weeks and months. Moreover, with Russia focusing on civilian targets and leveling parts of many major metropolitan areas in Ukraine, the essential infrastructure and “livability” of many areas is rapidly being destroyed.
Thus, even if a “truce” were declared tomorrow (which it won’t be), many who have fled would not be able to return for the foreseeable future, perhaps never, even if they wanted to. The latter is a particular risk if Russia makes good on its threats to eradicate the current Ukrainian Government and replace it with a Russian puppet regime.
Refugee planning has consistently lagged foreign policy developments even though that has been shown to be problematic over and over. When will we ever learn?
We can’t necessarily prevent all foreign wars and internal upheavals, worthy as that goal might be. But, we can learn to deal better with inevitable refugee displacements.
Indeed, that was the purpose of the UN Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees, to which we and the other major democracies are parties. That more than 70 years after the initial Convention was signed we are still groping for solutions (indeed, we have shamefully abrogated a number of our key responsibilities under both domestic and international law)to recurring, somewhat predictable, and inevitable dislocations of humanity is something that should be of concern to all.
Despite all of the nativist propaganda, the truth is that nobody wants to be a refugee and that it could happen to any of us for reasons totally beyond our control! The similarity of the lives of many Ukrainians, up until a few weeks ago, to daily life in Western Democracies has perhaps “brought home” these realities in ways that the equally bad or even worse plight of other refugees in recent times has not.
I hope that we can learn from this terrible situation and treat not only Ukrainian refugees, but all refugees, with generosity, humanity, compassion, kindness, and as we would hope to be treated if our situations were reversed. Because, in reality, nobody is immune from the possibility of becoming a refugee!
Joseph A. Vail Asylum Workshop shares valuable immigration insights in the era of the Biden Administration
Retired Immigration Judge, U.S. Immigration Court and Former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt discusses growing immigration court backlogs.
Feb. 7, 2022 – More than 350 practitioners attended the annual Joseph A. Vail Asylum Workshop recently. The four-hour virtual event held on Jan. 28 was presented by the University of Houston Law Center’s Immigration Clinic and co-sponsored by Interfaith Ministries of Greater Houston. Interfaith Ministries joined this year to shed light on the plight of Afghani refugees who have settled in Houston since the government in Afghanistan collapsed and the Taliban takeover.
The goal of the workshop was to provide an update on immigration practices since President Biden took office. For example, while Biden halted the building of the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico and removed Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) – where asylum seekers must remain on the Mexican side of the border while awaiting U.S. immigration court dates – a federal court order forced MPP to be reinstated. Immigration court backlogs continue to grow with former Board of Immigration Appeals Chairman Paul W. Schmidt predicting them reaching over 2 million by the end of 2022.
The first panel, moderated by Immigration Clinic Director Geoffrey Hoffman, explored the Biden Administration’s focus on Prosecutorial Discretion, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Migratory Protection Protocols (MPP), recent circuit court decisions, Afghan and Haitian case precedents, and immigration court backlogs.
“I hope you are emboldened to take a pro-bono client,” said Hoffman. “You can reach out to any of us on this call and use us as mentors.”
Panelist Magali Candler Suarez, principal at Suarez Candler Law, PLLC warned practitioners that Title 42 – a public health and welfare statue that gives the Center for Disease Control and Prevention the power to decide whether something like Covid-19 in a foreign country poses a serious danger of spreading in the U.S. – was being applied to Haitians in a racist manner.
“Many Haitians are being turned back at the border,” said Candler Suarez. “They are being denied the right to apply for asylum.”
The second panel, moderated by Parker Sheffy, a clinical teaching fellow at the Immigration Clinic, was a refresher on asylum, withholding of removal and CAT. Panelist Elizabeth Mendoza from the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), which supports immigration attorneys in this work, spoke about challenges because of newly appointed immigration judges and evolving Covid practices.
“Unfortunately, things are in flux this month,” said Mendoza. “It’s not out of the ordinary to be given conflicting information.”
Well known former U.S. immigration judge, Jeffrey S. Chase, was the final panelist in this group and focused on the future of asylum in the U.S. “The Biden Administation issued a paper on climate change and migration,” said Chase. “[What] they were really talking about [though was] asylum and how climate change will impact that.”
A third panel offered insights on the use of experts in removal proceedings. UH Law Center Professor Rosemary Vega moderated the discussion which ranged from psychological experts to country experts and where to find them.
“The Center for Gender and Refugee Studies has a giant list of experts on many topics,” said panelist and UH Law Professor Lucas Aisenberg. “It’s the first place I go to when I’m working on a case.”
The workshop wrapped up with speakers from Interfaith Ministries of Greater Houston explaining what it is like to be a refugee from Afghanistan and how hard it has been to meet the needs of Afghan refugees that have arrived in the last year.
“Two years ago, we resettled 407 Afghan refugees,” said Martin B. Cominsky, president, and CEO of Interfaith Ministries of Greater Houston. “Since September 2021, we have resettled 11,081 refugees.” He implored practitioners on the call to help in any way they can.
The Joseph A. Vail Asylum Workshop has been held annually since 2014 in memory of the University of Houston Law Center Immigration Clinic’s founder. Since the clinic’s inception in 1999, it has become one of the largest in the nation, specializing in handling asylum applications for victims of torture and persecution, representing victims of domestic violence, human trafficking, and crime, and helping those fleeing civil war, genocide, or political repression. The clinic has served over 2,000 individuals who otherwise could not afford legal services.
For a full list of speakers at this year’s event, click here.
******************
“Immigration court backlogs continue to grow with former Board of Immigration Appeals Chairman Paul W. Schmidt predicting them reaching over 2 million by the end of 2022.”
“Aimless Docket Reshuffling” is thriving @ Garland’s EOIR. Instead of gimmicks designed to “prioritize for denial and deterrence” (how about those “engineered in absentia dockets?”) why not work with the private bar and DHS to prioritize at both the Asylum Office and EOIR those with the most compelling cases from countries where refugee flows are well-documented?
For example, why not “prioritize” represented Uyghur and Afghani cases which should be “slam dunk” asylum grants? What’s the purpose of making folks who are going to be part of our society unnecessarily spend years in limbo?
Is anybody in the Biden Administration actually planning for a possible human rights catastrophe, or just waiting for it to happen and then declaring yet another “migration emergency.”
Contrary to the uninformed view of many, backlogs aren’t just a workload problem or a hindrance to enforcement. There are huge human, psychological, economic, societal, and institutional costs with maintaining large uncontrolled backlogs.
Most of those costs fall on the individuals with strong, likely winning cases who constantly are “orbited to the end of the line” to accommodate ever-changing, ill-advised, enforcement agendas and misguided “quick fix” initiatives. That’s so that DHS and DOJ can misuse the legal system as a deterrent — by prioritizing the cases they think they can deny without much due process to “send messages” about the futility of asking for protection or asserting rights in the U.S. legal system! And, those with strong cases (and their attorneys) “twist in the wind” as denials and deterrence are prioritized.
Trying to prioritize “bogus denials” (often without hearings, lawyers, time to prepare, or careful expert judging) also creates false statistical profiles suggesting, quite dishonestly, that there is no merit to most cases. These false narratives, in turn, are picked up and repeated by the media, usually without critical examination.
Like the “Big Lie,” they eventually develop “a life of their own” simply by repetition. When occasionally “caught in action” by Article IIIs, the resulting backlog bolstering remands and “restarts” are inevitably blamed on the individuals (the victims), rather than the systematic Government incompetence that is truly responsible!
The truth is quite different from the DOJ/DHS myths.Over the years, despite facing a chronically unfair system intentionally skewed against them, some hostile or poorly qualified Immigration Judges and Appellate IJs, and wildly inconsistent results on similar cases before different judges (so-called “Refugee Roulette”), asylum seekers have won from 30% to more than 50% of the time when they actually receive an opportunity for a full, individual merits determination of their claims.
But, getting that individual hearing has proved challenging in a system that constantly puts expediency and enforcement before due process, fundamental fairness, and human dignity! No matter how the Government tries to hide it, that means that there lots of bona fide asylum seekers out there whose cases are languishing in a broken system.
The creation of the USCIS Asylum Office was supposed to be a way of dealing with this issue through so-called affirmative applications and “quick approvals” of meritorious cases. But, during the Trump Administration even that flawed system was intentionally and maliciously “dumbed down,” “de-functionalized,” “re-prioritized,” and hopelessly backlogged. It was so bad that the Asylum Officers’ Union actually sued the Trump Administration for acting illegally.
More “gimmicks” like Garland’s failed “dedicated dockets” won’t fix his dysfunctional system. Fundamental leadership, personnel, substantive quality, procedural, and “cultural” changes are necessary to address backlogs while achieving due process and fundamental fairness at EOIR. Ironically, that was once the “EOIR Vision.” ⚖️ It’s too bad, actually tragic, Garland doesn’t share it!🤯
WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr sharply criticized on Monday the F.B.I.’s decision to open the Russia investigation, undercutting a major finding in a long-awaited watchdog report and at the same time showing his willingness to act as President Trump’s vocal defender.
The report, by the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, found that the F.B.I. had adequate reason in 2016 to open an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties with Russia. Mr. Horowitz broadly rejected Mr. Trump’s accusations that F.B.I. officials conspired to sabotage his campaign, but Mr. Barr highlighted findings that underscored his and the president’s shared view that investigators were nonetheless overly invasive in scrutinizing people associated with a presidential campaign.
“The inspector general’s report now makes clear that the F.B.I. launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken,” Mr. Barr said in a statement.
Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer
John H. Durham, a federal prosecutor whom Mr. Barr appointed to run a separate criminal investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation, backed Mr. Barr’s findings in his own highly unusual statement. “Last month, we advised the inspector general that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the F.B.I. case was opened,” Mr. Durham said.Read the Inspector General’s Report on the Russia Investigation
The Justice Department’s inspector general released this report into the early stages of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation.
The statements from the Justice Department’s top official and one of his key investigators gave Mr. Trump’s supporters ammunition to dispute one of the key findings in the long-awaited report by Mr. Horowitz that excoriated the F.B.I.’s handling of a wiretap application used in the early stages of its Russia investigation.
While the report was searing in its conclusion that the wiretap application process was marked with errors, it exonerated former bureau leaders of accusations by the president and his allies that Mr. Trump was the victim of a politicized conspiracy to sabotage his campaign and his presidency.
Mr. Horowitz concluded that the F.B.I. had sufficient evidence in July 2016 to lawfully open the investigation and to use informants. But he did note that the bureau’s standards were very low.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
Katie Benner covers the Justice Department. She was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for public service for reporting on workplace sexual harassment issues. @ktbenner
************************************
Billy is desperately trying to put Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and “John the Con” Mitchell in the rearview mirror in the race to be the worst Attorney General in U.S. history!
Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) said Sunday that both Russia and Ukraine interfered in the 2016 presidential election, despite the intelligence community’s assessment that only Russia did so.
The comments mark Kennedy’s latest attempt to shift the focus away from the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia worked to help elect President Trump, following a Fox News Channel interview last week from which he later backtracked.
They also come as Democrats press forward with their impeachment inquiry into Trump, with the House Intelligence Committee expected to meet Tuesday to approve the release of a report on its findings on Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.
WATCH: @ChuckTodd asks @SenJohnKennedy if he is “at all concerned that he has been duped” into believing that former Ukraine president worked for the Clinton campaign in 2016 #MTP#IfItsSunday@SenJohnKennedy: “No, just read the articles.”
Asked about conservative columnist Michael Gerson’s criticism of his incorrect claim to Fox that Ukraine, not Russia, might have been behind the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails in 2016, Kennedy said he disagrees with the suggestion that he’s turning a blind eye to the truth.
“I think both Russia and Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election,” Kennedy told host Chuck Todd on NBC News’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday.
Todd pressed Kennedy on whether he was concerned that he had been “duped” by Russian propaganda, noting reports that U.S. intelligence officials recently briefed senators that “this is a Russian intelligence propaganda campaign in order to get people like you to say these things about Ukraine.”
Kennedy responded that he had received no such warning.
“I wasn’t briefed. Dr. Hill is entitled to her opinion,” Kennedy said, referring to former National Security Council Russia adviser Fiona Hill, who testified in the impeachment inquiry last month.
In her public testimony, Hill warned that several Trump allies had spread unfounded allegations that Ukraine, rather than Russia, had interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
“This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services,” she said.
Kennedy argued Sunday that Ukraine’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 campaign have been “very well-documented,” citing reporting by the Economist, the Financial Times, the Washington Examiner and others.
“Does that mean that Ukrainian, the Ukrainian leaders were more aggressive than Russia? No. Russia was very aggressive and they’re much more sophisticated. But the fact that Russia was so aggressive does not exclude the fact that President Poroshenko actively worked for Secretary Clinton,” Kennedy said, referring to former Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko.
Despite Kennedy’s claim, there is no evidence that the Ukrainian government engaged in a large-scale effort to aid Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Todd responded to the Louisiana Republican’s remarks with disbelief.
“I mean, my goodness, wait a minute, Senator Kennedy,” he said. “You now have the president of Ukraine saying he actively worked for the Democratic nominee for president. I mean, now come on.”
Todd then displayed a photo of Russian President Vladimir Putin and the text of remarks Putin made at a “Russia Calling!” economic forum in Moscow on Nov. 20. At the event, Putin expressed pleasure that talk of interference in the 2016 U.S. election has shifted away from Russia and to Ukraine during the impeachment hearings.
“Thank God,” Putin said. “No one is accusing us of interfering in the United States elections anymore. Now they’re accusing Ukraine. We’ll let them deal with that themselves.”
Todd then pressed Kennedy: “You realize the only other person selling this argument outside the United States is this man, Vladimir Putin. … You have done exactly what the Russian operation is trying to get American politicians to do. Are you at all concerned that you’ve been duped?”
“No, because you — just read the articles,” Kennedy replied.
********************************
This article illustrates a continuing problem: you can’t have a real discussion or dialogue about impeachment with any Republican because they just keep repeating the Putin/Trump “party line” of demonstrable lies.
One of the reports cited by Kennedy, a 2017 Politico article, has since been largely debunked:
After the Politico report came out, other media outlets went to work examining the allegations and found there wasn’t anything to them. The Washington Post reported in July 2017:
“While the Politico story does detail apparent willingness among embassy staffers to help Chalupa and also more broadly documents ways in which Ukrainian officials appeared to prefer Clinton’s candidacy, what’s missing is evidence of a concerted effort driven by Kiev.
U.S. intelligence agencies believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally directed his intelligence agencies to hack into and release private information from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. That effort included hackers from two different intelligence agencies which spent months inside the DNC network before releasing thousands of pages of documents to the public.
…“
By contrast, Politico’s report details the work of one person who was researching Manafort with help from inside the Ukrainian Embassy and who, at some undetermined point, provided info to the Clinton campaign, though she worked for the DNC as a consultant until shortly before the party conventions. That, coupled with the Manafort ledger revelation, is the full scope of the Ukrainian plot that’s been revealed. A weak link to the Ukrainians and a weaker link to the Clinton campaign.
On the July 17, 2017, edition of CNN’s New Day, David Stern, co-author of the original Politico article, said the questions about the involvement of some Ukrainian elements were not equivalent to the many stories about Russian government actions in 2016.
From the July 17, 2017, edition of CNN’s New Day:
“But when you dig down into the details, they’re very, very different,” Stern said, “and it’s important to note the difference there. Now, we said in our article … that we don’t have, as far as we can see, the type of top-down and wide, broad attack on the American election that was being alleged.”
So, between the credible testimony of Dr. Fiona Hill, supported by the U.S. intelligence community, and a debunked report from Politico and others, Kennedy chooses to believe the latter over the former. Go figure! No doubt Putin is thinking “useful idiot” whenever he sees Kennedy peddle his Kremlin propaganda on TV.
There was a time long ago when the GOP would have been all over any politician helping Russia undermine America’s electoral process and national security. No longer. Now the GOP is the “Party of Putin,” actively working to destroy our nation.
Once, folks would have been aghast at an American President spreading Putin’s false narratives. Now, it “just another day in the Oval Office.” Just one of the many ways in which Trump has demeaned our nation and our political processes. And, it doesn’t even “move the needle” among Trump’s supporters who have abandoned our country and our national interests.
It’s hardly breaking news that President Trump has an uneasy relationship with the rule of law. He campaigned on putting his unindicted opponent in jail. He has attacked judges individually and the judiciary as an institution. He allegedly asked his FBI director for loyalty and to lay off a top aide. He tried to get his first attorney general to launch politically expedient investigations. Robert S. Mueller III laid out five instances in which there was significant evidence that he obstructed justice. He’s declining to cooperate with his own impeachment inquiry. And he even criticized his Justice Department for indicting two Republican congressman.
What hasn’t been chewed over quite as thoroughly is how much this attitude has infected those around him — many of them in the Republican Party, which prides itself as the party of the rule of law.
And the past 24 hours have been full of activity on that front.
They began Tuesday night with Matthew G. Whitaker, Trump’s former acting attorney general, taking to the airwaves of Fox News to declare that a president abusing power not only isn’t a crime, but also isn’t even impeachable.
“Abuse of power is not a crime,” Whitaker said. “Let’s fundamentally boil it down. The Constitution’s very clear that this has to be some pretty egregious behavior.”
Then came Wednesday morning, when a throng of Republican congressmen, led by Rep. Matt Gaetz (Fla.), decided to storm the proceedings of the House impeachment inquiry to highlight concerns about its process. They effectively shut it down for five hours and caused the testimony of Defense Department aide Laura Cooper to be delayed.
The situation harked back to 2016, when House Democrats — who were then in the minority — staged a sit-in protest on the House floor over gun control. At the time, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) declared that Democrats had “replaced rule of law with the rules of the mob.” Another House Republican shouted, “Rule of law means order!” Another stickler for the rules at the time was then-Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), who is now acting White House chief of staff. “When somebody violates all the rules that they, you know, said they would adhere to and sets bad precedent for the future,” Mulvaney said, “it simply shows that if you act badly, you can get what you want.”
Beyond the issue of the rules in this protest was the matter of security. The impeachment inquiry depositions are held in a secure room, but some Republicans brought in their cellphones, which is against the rules, raising concerns about whether the room had been compromised.
The last development on the rule-of-law front Wednesday was in an actual courtroom. While defending Trump from having to turn over his private financial records, his private attorney William S. Consovoy made an extremely broad assertion of presidential immunity. He said that basically no jurisdiction — whether local or federal — can investigate a sitting president.
And when a judge asked him whether that would also be the case if Trump, as he so famously intoned, shot someone on Fifth Avenue in New York City, Consovoy responded in the affirmative.
“Local authorities couldn’t investigate? They couldn’t do anything about it?” U.S. Appeals Court Judge Denny Chin asked. “Nothing could be done? That is your position?”
“That is correct,” Consovoy said, noting that any crimes could be handled once the president was out of office.
It is understood that a president can’t be indicted while in office; this is the policy of the Justice Department and has been dating to Richard Nixon. What is much more controversial is the idea that jurisdictions cannot even investigate Trump. U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero recently called the Trump team’s assertion of immunity “virtually limitless” and deemed the claim “repugnant to the nation’s fundamental structure and constitutional values.”
The claim is merely the latest bold one from the Trump legal team and from Consovoy. Earlier this year, both the White House counsel and Consovoy maintained that Congress also had no right to investigate the president for the sake of oversight.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta asked Consovoy that if “a president was involved in some corrupt enterprise, you mean to tell me, because he is the president of the United States, Congress would not have power to investigate?” Consovoy answered that was his argument, because it would not be “pursuant to its legislative agenda.”
Congress has since launched impeachment proceedings, which is a power expressly granted in the Constitution and would seem to mitigate questions about whether its members have the authority to do what they are doing. But Republicans are making all kinds of other process arguments to attack the legitimacy of the investigation and decline to cooperate — even as there is little in the law to guide what impeachment proceedings must look like. They are complaining about the lack of a due process, even though this isn’t a trial (yet). They cry foul over the lack of a vote to launch the inquiry, which has been held in the past but is not required by law.
And as that situation and Trump’s standing as president become more embattled, it looks as though the “rule of law” party is going to continue making arguments about why Trump holds a unique place in relation to that law — and why perhaps it’s worth breaking the rules on his behalf.
***************************************
Remember, folks, an attempt to hold the Grifter-in-Chief and his White Nationalist regime accountable for abuses of authority is an attack on White privilege everywhere!
No wonder the so-called “Freedom” Caucus and its privileged White guys (used in a generic sense, as there appear to be a couple of GOP women members who glory in and feel empowered by their male companions’ chauvinism, particularly when it comes to putting down smart, powerful women of color) are so upset.Like their Grifter, they love the concept of America as it was in the “good old days,” before MLK, Jr., and the nasty “Civil Rights Era,” when the law was largely a tool to oppress African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Catholic Americans, Jewish Americans, immigrants, and a host of “others.” They are righteously upset that their overprivileged, unqualified, unscrupulous Supreme Leader, a living example of where “White privilege” will get you, could be held accountable for some of his myriad of misdeeds and outright mockeries of our Constitution and the rule of law.
The good news for the BBRs and their fellow GOP enablers (incidentally, the GOP has had full rights under Congressional rules to participate in the ongoing investigation — just not to control it from their minority position): the impeachment investigation will soon be “taken public” as they (disingenuously) claim to desire.
The bad news: they will have to come up with different forms of diversion and disruption, because on the publicly disclosed facts, there is no defense for either their continuing White privilege or the lawless actions and continuing abuses of authority by their “Supreme Leader.”
Check it out at NBC News. Johnson obviously thinks the American people are even more stupid and dishonest than he is. The corrupt GOP is bringing down our country. Johnson is a coward, afraid to speak truth about a fraudulent President and his anti-American regime! Johnson’s attack on the press was also dishonest and totally out of line.
As more details emerge about Donald Trump’s whistleblower scandal, it’s clear the man standing in the way of any investigation into the president’s actions, once again, is Attorney General William Barr. The House’s now formal impeachment inquiry may be the last remaining tool that Barr cannot tamper with.
Barr has already successfully stymied one investigation of presidential misconduct: Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. The attorney general released a misleading “summary” of the report before its publication, one that rankled Mueller himself. He also devised dubious legal standards to find insufficient evidence that Trump obstructed justice. Barr then prefaced the report’s release with an appalling press conference that painted Trump as the real victim. In congressional testimony, he trashed his own Justice Department to further defend Trump. Later, Barr took pains to hide the full Mueller report from Congress, deploying a baseless legal theory to conceal key redactions from lawmakers.
With each new development in the Ukraine scandal, we are seeing the Trump administration run the Barr playbook all over again. But there is an important difference. When Barr took the reins at DOJ, the Mueller investigation was near its end: Barr could not interfere with the probe itself; he could only run damage control once it concluded. This time, Barr has been in control from the start. And his Justice Department has blocked every avenue through which Trump might be held accountable.
Notes on the telephone conversation between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky suggest Barr is implicated in Trump’s dirty work. (The memo is not a transcript, but rather a compilation of “notes and recollections” from officials listening in.) Trump mentions his attorney general six times as a resource for Zelensky. The president urges Zelensky to investigate his potential 2020 rival, Joe Biden—referring to unsubstantiated allegations that, as vice president, Biden used his position to quash a Ukrainian investigation into his son. “[W]hatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great,” Trump adds. He also told Zelensky that he would have his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani “give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it.”
Barr has been in control from the start.
The Justice Department released a statement Wednesday claiming that neither Trump nor Giuliani have spoken with Barr about pressuring Ukraine to investigate Biden and his son. But there is ample evidence that Barr played a substantial role in protecting Trump from a whistleblower complaint over the call. House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler has already insisted that Barr recuse himself “until we get to the bottom of this matter.” House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff also sent a letter to Barr Wednesday saying the DOJ’s involvement “raises the specter that the Department has participated in a dangerous cover-up to protect the President.”
Before Barr’s possible involvement in the Ukraine affair had even been made public, the DOJ stepped in to mute the whistleblower complaint over this call. Under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, or ICWPA, whistleblowers in a federal intelligence agency must send their complaint to Michael Atkinson, Intelligence Community inspector general. The law tasks Atkinson with deciding whether the complaint is credible and of “urgent concern.” If it is, Atkinson must send it to acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire. ICWPA states that Maguire, in turn, “shall … forward” the complaint to congressional intelligence committees within seven days.
This process worked as intended—until the DOJ stepped in. Atkinson received the whistleblower complaint and found it to be a credible allegation of “urgent concern.” So he sent it to Maguire. Instead of sending it to Congress, as he was legally obligated to do, Maguire asked the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, which makes law that binds the executive branch. The OLC declared that he could not pass it on in an opinion later released to the public in modified form, holding that the whistleblower complaint did not pertain to a matter of “urgent concern.”
This opinion is bizarre, because the law does not allow Maguire—and, by extension, the OLC—to overrule Atkinson’s assessment of a whistleblower complaint. It tasks Atkinson with deciding whether the complaint meets ICWPA’s standards, not Maguire. OLC claimed a right, on Maguire’s behalf, to independently determine whether the complaint constitutes an “urgent concern.” No such right exists.
The OLC then followed a different law, which requires executive branch officials to notify the attorney general if they discover potential “violations of Federal criminal law involving Government officers.” So instead of going to Congress, the whistleblower’s complaint went to the DOJ and, apparently, to Barr himself. The DOJ then assessed whether Trump may have committed a campaign finance violation, since it is a federal crime for any person to “solicit” any “thing of value” from a foreign national in connection with an election.
On Wednesday, the DOJ released a statement announcing that the agency had determined that “that there was no campaign finance violation and that no further action was warranted.” It reached this finding by deciding that dirt on a political opponent is not a “thing of value”—disagreeing with Robert Mueller, who believed opposition research could qualify as a “thing of value.” The DOJ’s contrary conclusion theory of campaign finance law is far-fetched if not outright incorrect, ignoring the immense value that Trump and Giuliani evidently saw in a Biden investigation.
We don’t know for sure that Barr’s fingerprints are on this decision. But the OLC purported to follow a statute that required the whistleblower complaint to be “expeditiously reported to the Attorney General.” Thus, Barr was, at a minimum, presumably aware of the criminal referral. Moreover, there is no indication that Barr recused himself from the whistleblower matter, even though Trump invoked him on the call at the center of the affair.
In short, Barr’s Justice Department first manipulated ICWPA to prevent Maguire from sending the whistleblower complaint to Congress. It then manipulated campaign finance law to determine that Trump had committed no crime and refused to open an investigation. And the Attorney General himself, who appears to be implicated in the whistleblower’s complaint, almost certainly played a role in quashing any probe into the president.
Faced with this stonewalling at DOJ, House Democrats have no choice but to pursue impeachment if they want to get to the bottom of this scandal and punish Trump accordingly. Barr and his allies at the Justice Department certainly aren’t going to do it. To the contrary, the Justice Department seems eager to shield the president from any consequences. Under Barr, the DOJ has defended Trump’s refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas into his personal finances. It has even intervened on behalf of his former campaign chairman, convicted felon Paul Manafort, lobbying for him to receive special privileges behind bars. The Justice Department has all but announced that it will aide Trump’s allies and fight his enemies.
Barr will do whatever he can insulate Trump from federal law. We can certainly expect his DOJ to fight the House’s impeachment inquiry by attempting to stop executive officials from testifying, as ithas before. But there is one important power that Barr lacks: He cannot stop Congress from concluding that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
*************************************
Stern doesn’t even get into the equally serious problem of Barr’s “maliciously incompetent” mis-management, his intentional misconstruction of immigration law, and his promotion of biased, xenophobic, anti-asylum applicant decision making in the failing U.S. Immigration Courts which, despite their clearly unconstitutional structure, continue to operate as an appendage of DHS enforcement within the DOJ, as the Federal Appellate Courts disgracefully (and spinelessly) pretend to look the other way. History won’t be so kind to the “enablers” on the Federal Bench.
