Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
CA3 on “Something to Review” – Valarezo-Tirado v. A.G.
“We have previously granted a petition for review in which the alleged basis for the BIA’s denial of relief was that “the evidence is insufficient” and “the arguments made by the [government] on appeal . . . are persua[sive]” because we could not “perform meaningful review of [such an] order.” Here, we have even less to work with. … The most fundamental notion of due process must include an opportunity for meaningful judicial review. We reiterate that “judicial review necessarily requires something to review and, if the agency provides only its result without an explanation of the underlying fact finding and analysis, a court is unable to provide judicial review.” The required review is simply not possible when we are provided with nothing more than the kind of one-line checklist that is relied upon here. We cannot allow an IJ or the BIA to dispense with an adequate explanation of a final decision merely to facilitate or accommodate administrative expediency. Since “the [IJ]’s failure of explanation makes it impossible for us to review its rationale, we [will] grant [Valarezo-Tirado’s] petition for review, vacate the [IJ’s] order, and remand the matter to [the IJ] for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” … A 2019 study found that “on average each [immigration] judge currently has an active pending caseload of over two thousand cases.” Nevertheless, we cannot allow incredibly difficult logistics to give license to IJs to skirt their responsibilities. This includes the obligation to inform the petitioner of the reasons for the IJ’s decision and provide an adequate explanation of the decision that does not require us to parse through the testimony in search of evidence that supports it. A two-sentence recitation on a bullet-point form will rarely, if ever, provide sufficient reasoning for a decision. A decision, such as the one here, that does not refer to record evidence will never suffice. Because, here, the IJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, we will vacate the decision and order and remand to the IJ for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats off to pro bono publico counsel Robert D. Helfand and Charles W. Stotter!]
***************************
Hey, Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions said it: “Volume is critical. It just is.” For him, and then Barr, it was “all about numbers,” never about quality, fairness, or judicial independence!
Interestingly, this was a “reasonable fear review” proceeding following “reinstatement” of a removal order. Even before the Trump kakistocracy, Immigration Judges once were told that there was no need for a reasoned decision because their actions were “non-reviewable” by the BIA or the Circuits. Later, in the Obama Administration, as some Circuits took an interest in these cases, judges were encouraged by EOIR HQ to enter brief decisions so that OIL could defend them on appeal, if their “no jurisdiction to review” argument failed.
There is a serious defect in a system that provides no meaningful review or appellate direction in cases with life or death consequences. Obviously, this is a system focused on something other than fairness, scholarship, quality, and justice!
After years of being told (even forced, through bogus “production quotas’) to “cut corners” and “move ‘em out” by their political “handlers” at the DOJ, neither EOIR “management” nor the current BIA is capable of providing the bold leadership, progressive “fair but efficient” scholarship and direction, quality control, and positive precedents and systemic changes necessary to insure that EOIR’s “once and future vision” of “through teamwork and innovation, becoming the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for ALL” is finally realized. After four years or intentional degradation and movement in exactly the OPPOSITE direction by Sessions, Barr, and their “Miller Lite” cronies and toadies, it’s time for a change!
Obviously, the due-process-denying and demeaning (to both IJs and those seeking justice) “production quotas” and equally bureaucratic and bogus “performance work plans” should already have been revoked by Garland. They could replaced with a meaningful system of appellate supervision and judicial professional responsibility and training modeled on that of “real courts.” For example, check out the system used by the DC Court system to maintain professionalism, provide constructive feedback, and make recommendations for tenure decisions on judges, with both public and peer participation.
As the Third Circuit points out, high volume is not an excuse for sloppy work and denial of due process! The backlog can be slashed and justice restored, and even improved, while maintaining high standards of quality and implementing and enforcing best practices. EOIR indeed could become a “model progressive court system.” But, it’s going to take a new team of progressive judges and qualified progressive Administrators, folks with experience in the “horrors of today’s Immigration (not) Courts” and an unswerving commitment to due process and best practices to get the job done!
🇺🇸Due Process Forever!
PWS
07-16-21