"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.
President-Elect Joe Biden Official portrait of Vice President Joe Biden in his West Wing Office at the White House, Jan. 10, 2013. (Official White House Photo by David Lienemann).
Following the “official” beginning of his transition, President-Elect Joe Biden showed why an impressive majority of Americans wisely called on him and his running mate Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris at this pivotal moment in history to preserve and rescue our nation, solve pressing problems, and return us to a positive leadership role in a world that needs and longs for it.
Biden praised the recent sincere cooperation from the outgoing Administration. He vowed to make his top priorities controlling the pandemic and getting the American economy and the now bleak jobs picture back on track to success. He promised to focus on the hardest hit communities — primarily minority communities who have disproportionately borne the brunt of COVID-19 while providing essential services to all Americans. In that respect, he has already been listening to the advice and input of state governors, mayors, and local officials of both parties. Helping hard pressed state and local governments will be high on his “to do” list.
The President-Elect vowed to push forward with sound immigration, environmental, and climate change policies in the early days of his Administration. To assist in the effort, he initially tapped a group of acknowledged Government experts and veteran public servants to help and advise him and Vice President Harris in their Cabinet. Professionalism, demonstrated excellence in public service, and expertise were the common qualities of the nominees.
So far, Biden’s Cabinet choices, apparently also reflecting Vice President-Elect Harris’s influence, look like the nation they will be serving. They come from a variety of backgrounds and embody the gender and racial diversity of America.
While some commentators have expressed concerns of an “Obama IIIl” look to the Cabinet, Biden scotched that idea. He correctly pointed out that America is a much different nation facing a much different world than when he left the Vice Presidency four years ago. We face a new range of problems that must be solved. He promised to provide the type of unifying, empirically based, empathetic, and forward-looking leadership that will allow us to surmount the current challenges and move forward together to greater heights!
Significantly, Biden told Holt he would eschew political vendettas and appeared determined to restore integrity, professionalism, and independence to a broken and dysfunctional Justice Department.
The proof will be in the governing and the actions, although Biden noted the important role played by a President’s rhetoric and universal leadership qualities. Undoubtedly, things will not be perfect. But, so far, Biden appears to be on the right track and setting the correct tone for what is likely to be the most important Presidency since Abraham Lincoln (and arguably, the most important in American history).
Come January 20, 2021, the circus will be pulling up stakes and leaving town. Let the governing begin!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleMe
FROM THE HEIGHTS OF KASINGA TO THE DEPTHS OF AMERICA’S DEADLY STAR CHAMBERS: Will The Biden Administration Tap The New Due Process Army To Fix EOIR & Save Our Nation?
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Retired U.S. Immigration Judge
Courtside Exclusive
Nov. 12, 2020
I. INTRODUCTION — ABROGATION OF ASYLUM LAWS IN THE FACE OF EXECUTIVE LAWLESSNESS & RACIAL BIAS IS A NATIONAL DISGRACE
In Matter ofKasinga, I applied the generous well-founded fear standard for asylum established by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca to reach a favorable result for a female asylum applicant. It was based on a particular social group of women of the tribe who feared persecution in the form of female genital mutilation, or “FGM.” I sometimes think of this as the “high water mark” of asylum law at the BIA.
Since then, proper, generous application of asylum laws to serve their intended purpose of flexibly, fairly, and consistently extending protection to those facing persecution has been steadily declining. The Trump Administration essentially overruled Cardoza-Fonseca and abolished asylum law without legislative change.
Both Congress and the Court have failed to stand up to this egregious abuse of the law, constitutional due process, and simple human decency that presents a “clear and present danger” to our nation’s continued existence.
Indeed, the performance of the Court in the face of the Administration’s overt assault on asylum has been so woeful as to lead me to wonder whether any of the Justices, other than Justice Sonia Sotomayor, have actually read the Cardoza-Fonseca decision. Certainly, most of them have failed to consistently and courageously carry forth its spirit and to grapple with their legal and moral responsibility for letting a lawless Executive trample the constitutional and human rights, as well as the human dignity, of the most vulnerable among us.
How did we get to this utterly deplorable state of affairs and what can the Biden Administration do to save us? Will they act boldly and courageously or continue the tradition of ignoring abuses directed against asylum seekers and the deleterious effect it has on our society and the rule of law?
I guarantee that racial justice and harmony will continue to elude us as a nation unless and until we come to grips with the ongoing abuses in the Immigration Courts — “courts” that no longer function as such in any manner except the misleading name!
II. BACKGROUND
To understand what has happened since Kasinga, here’s some background. In U.S. asylum law, there generally has been an “inverse relationship” between geography and success. The further your home country is from the U.S., the more generous the treatment is likely to be.
Thus, folks like Kasinga from Togo, or those from Tibet, Ethiopia, China, or Eritrea, with relatively difficult access to our borders, tend to do relatively well. On the other hand, those from Mexico, Haiti, Central America, and South America, who have easier access to our borders, tend to be treated more restrictively.
This reaction has been driven by a hypothesis with limited empirical support, but which has been accepted in some form or another by all Administrations, regardless of party, since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980. That is, the belief that human migration patterns are driven primarily by the policies and legal regimes in prosperous so-called “receiving countries” like the U.S.
Thus, generous and humane asylum policies will encourage unwanted flows of asylum seekers across international borders. And, of course, we all know that nothing threatens the national security of the world’s greatest nuclear superpower more than a caravan or flotilla of desperate, unarmed asylum seekers and their families trying to turn themselves in at the border or to the Border Patrol shortly after arrival.
Conversely, restrictive policies including rapid, unfair rejection, border turn-backs, mass detentions, criminal sanctions, family separation, denials of fair hearings, walls, border militarization, and hostile, often racially and religiously charged rhetoric, will cause asylum seekers to “stay put” thus deterring them and reducing the number of applications threatening our national security. In other words, encourage legitimate asylum seekers to “perish in place.” Often, these harsh policies are disingenuously characterized as being, at least partially, “for the benefit of asylum seekers” by discouraging them from undertaking dangerous journeys and paying human smugglers only to be summarily rejected upon arrival.
This “popular hypothesis” largely ignores the effect of conditions in refugee sending countries, including both geopolitical and environmental factors. For example, the current migration flow is affected by the practical difficulties of travel in the time of pandemic and by economic failures and cultural and political changes resulting from unabated climate change, not just by the legal restrictions that might be in place in the U.S. and other far-away countries.
It also factors out the “business narratives” of human smugglers designed to manipulate asylum seekers in ways that maximize profits under a variety of scenarios and to take maximum advantage of mindlessly predictable government “enforcement only” strategies.
Indeed, there is plenty of reason to believe that such policies serve largely to maximize smugglers’ profits, extort more money from desperate asylum seekers, but with little long-term effect on migration patterns. The short-term reduction in traffic, often hastily mischaracterized as “success” by the government, probably reflects in part “market adjustments” as smugglers raise their rates to cover the increased risks and revised planning caused by more of a particular kind of enforcement. That “prices some would-be migrants out of the market,” at least temporarily, and forces others to wait while they accumulate more money to pay smugglers.
It also likely increases the number of asylum seekers who die while attempting the journey. But, there is no real evidence that four decades of various “get tough” and “deterrence policies” — right up until the present — have had or will have a determinative long term effect on extralegal migration to the U.S. It may well, however, encourage more migrants to proceed to the interior of the country and take “do it yourself” refuge in the population, rather than turning themselves in at or near the border to a legal system that has been intentionally rigged against them.
Regardless of its empirically questionable basis, “deterrence theory” has become the primary driving force behind government asylum policies. Thus, the fear of large-scale, out of control “Southern border incursions” by asylum seekers has driven all U.S. Administrations to adopt relatively restrictive interpretations and applications of asylum law with respect to asylum seekers from Central America.
Starting with a so-called “Southern border crisis” in the summer of 2014, the Obama Administration took a number of steps intended to discourage Central American asylum seekers. These included: use of so-called “family detention;” denial of bond; accelerated processing of recently arrived children and adults with children; selecting Immigration Judges largely from the ranks of DHS prosecutors and other Government employees; keeping asylum experts off the BIA; taking outlandish court positions on detention and the right to counsel for unrepresented toddlers in Immigration Court; and dire public warnings as to the dangers of journeying to the U.S. and the likelihood of rejection upon arrival.
These efforts did little to stem the flow of asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle. However, they did result in a wave of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) at the Immigration Courts that accelerated the growth of backlogs and the deterioration of morale at EOIR. (Later, Sessions & Barr would “perfect the art of ADR” thereby astronomically increasing backlogs, even with many more judges on the bench, to something approaching 1.5 million known cases, with probably hundreds of thousands more buried in the “maliciously incompetently managed” EOIR (non)system).
Success for Central American asylum applicants thus remained problematic, with more than two of every three applications being rejected. Nevertheless, by 2016, largely through the heroic efforts of pro bono litigation groups, applicants from the so-called “Northern Triangle” – El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala – had achieved a respectable approval rate ranging from approximately 20% to 30%.
Many of these successful claims were based on “particular social groups” composed of battered women and/or children or family groups targeted by violent husbands or boyfriends, gangs, cartels, and other so-called “non-governmental actors” that the Northern Triangle governments clearly were “unwilling or unable to control.”
III. CROSSHAIRS
Upon the ascension of the Trump Administration in 2017, refugee and asylum policies became driven not only by “deterrence theory,” but also by racially, religiously, and politically motivated “institutionalized xenophobia.” The initial target was Muslims who were “zapped” by Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban.” Although initially properly blocked as unconstitutional by lower Federal Courts, the Supreme Court eventually “greenlighted” a slightly watered-down version of the “Muslim ban.”
Next on the hit list were refugees and asylees of color. This put Central American asylum seekers, particularly women and children, directly in the crosshairs.
In something akin to “preliminary bombing,” then Attorney General Jeff Sessions launched a series of false and misleading narratives against asylum seekers and their lawyers directed at an audience consisting of Immigration Judges and BIA Members who worked at EOIR and thus were his subordinates.
Without evidence, Sessions characterized most asylum seekers as fraudulent or mala fide and blamed them as a primary cause for the population of 11 million or so undocumented individuals estimated to be residing in the U.S. He also accused “dirty immigration lawyers” of having “gamed” the asylum system, while charging “his” Immigration Judges with the responsibility of “assisting their partners” at DHS enforcement in stopping asylum fraud and discouraging asylum applications.
IV. THE ATTACK
While not directly tampering with the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum, with Sessions leading the way, the Administration launched a three-pronged attack on asylum seekers.
First, using his power to review BIA precedents, Sessions reversed the prior precedent that had facilitated asylum grants for applicants who had suffered persecution in the form of domestic abuse. In doing so, he characterized them as “mere victims of crime” who should not be recognized as a “particular social group.” While not part of the holding, he also commented to Immigration Judges in his opinion that very few claimants should succeed in establishing asylum eligibility based on domestic violence.
He further imposed bogus “production quotas” on judges with an eye toward speeding up the “deportation railroad.” In other words, Immigration Judges who valued their jobs should start cranking out mass denials of such cases without wasting time on legal analysis or the actual facts.
Later, Sessions’s successor, Attorney General Bill Barr, overruled the BIA precedent recognizing “family” as a particular social group for asylum. He found that the vast majority of family units lacked the required “social distinction” to qualify.
For example, a few prominent families like the Rockefellers, Clintons, or Kardashians might be generally recognized by society. However, ordinary families like the Schmidts would be largely unknown beyond their own limited social circles. Therefore, we would lack the necessary “social distinction” within the larger society to be recognized as a particular social group.
Second, Sessions and Barr attacked the “nexus” requirement that persecution be “on account of” a particular social group or other protected ground. They found that most alleged acts of domestic violence or harm inflicted by abusive spouses, gangs and cartels were “mere criminal acts” or acts of “random violence” not motivated by the victim’s membership in any “particular social group” or any of the other so-called “protected grounds” for asylum. They signaled that Immigration Judges who found “no nexus” would find friendly BIA appellate judges anxious to uphold those findings and thereby retain their jobs.
Third, they launched an attack on the long-established “nongovernmental actor” doctrine. They found that normally, qualifying acts of persecution would have to be carried out by the government or its agents. For non-governmental actions to be attributed to that government, that government would basically have to be helpless to respond.
They found that the Northern Triangle governments officially opposed the criminal acts of gangs, cartels, and abusers and made at least some effort to control them. They deemed the fact that those governments are notoriously corrupt and ineffective in controlling violence to be largely beside the point. After all, they observed, no government including ours offers “perfect protection” to its citizens.
Any effort by the government to control the actor, no matter how predictably or intentionally ineffective or nominal, should be considered sufficient to show that the government was willing and able to protect against the harm. In other words, even the most minimal or nominal opposition should be considered “good enough for government work.”
V. THE UGLY RESULTS
Remarkably, notwithstanding this concerted effort to “zero out” asylum grants, some individuals, even from the Northern Triangle, still succeed. They usually are assisted by experienced pro bono counsel from major human rights NGOs or large law firms — essentially the “New Due Process Army” in action. These are the folks who have saved what is left of American justice and democracy. Often, they must seek review in the independent, Article III Federal Courts to ultimately prevail.
Some Article IIIs are up to the job; many aren’t, lacking both the expertise and the philosophical inclination to actually enforce the constitutional and statutory rights of asylum seekers — “the other,” often people of color. After all, wrongfully deported to death means “out of sight, out of mind.”
However, the Administration’s efforts have had a major impact. Systemwide, the number of asylum cases decided by the Immigration Courts has approximately tripled since 2016 – from approximately 20,000 to over 60,000, multiplying backlogs as other, often older, “ready to try” cases are shuffled off to the end of the dockets, often with little or no notice to the parties.
At the same time, asylum grant rates for the Northern Triangle have fallen to their lowest rate in many years 10% to 15%. Taken together, that means many more asylum denials for Northern Triangle applicants, a major erosion of the generous “well-founded fear” standard for asylum, and a severe deterioration of due process protections in American law. Basically, it’s a collapse of our legal system and an affront to human dignity. The kinds of things you might expect in a “Banana Republic.”
VI. WILL BIDEN FIX EOIR OR REPEAT THE MISTAKES OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?
The intentional destruction of U.S. asylum law and the weaponization of EOIR in support of the White Nationalist agenda have undermined the entire U.S. justice system. It actively encourages both dehumanization (“Dred Scottification”) and institutionalized racism all the way up to a Supreme Court which has improperly enabled large portions of the unlawful and unconstitutional anti-migrant agenda.
The Biden Administration can reverse the festering due process and human rights disaster at EOIR. Unlike improving and reforming the Article III Judiciary, it doesn’t need Mitch McConnell’s input to do so.
Biden can appoint an Attorney General who will recognize the importance of putting immigration/human rights/due process experts in charge of EOIR. He can replace the current BIA with real appellate judges whose qualifications reflect an unswerving commitment to due process, expert application of asylum laws in the generous manner once envisioned by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca, implementing “best” practices, judicial efficiency, and judicial independence.
Biden can return human dignity to an improperly weaponized system designed to “Dred Scottify” the other. He can appoint better qualified Immigration Judges through a merit-based system that would encourage and give fair consideration to the many outstanding candidates who have devoted their professional lives to fighting for due process, fundamental fairness, and immigrants’ rights, courageously, throughout America’s darkest times!
That, in turn, will create the necessary conditions to institutionalize the EOIR reforms through the legislative creation of an independent, Article I Immigration Court that will be the “gemstone” of American justice rather than a national disgrace! One that will eventually fulfill the noble, now abandoned, “EOIR Vision” of “through teamwork and innovation being the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
The Obama Administration shortsightedly choose to “freeze out” the true experts in the private advocacy, NGO, academic, clinical teaching, and pro bono communities. The results have been beyond disastrous.
In addition to killing, maiming, and otherwise harming humans entitled to our legal protection, EOIR’s unseemly demise over the past three Administrations has undermined the credibility of every aspect of our justice system all the way to the Supreme Court as well as destroying our international leadership role as a shining example and beacon of hope for others.
The talent in the private sector is out there! They are ready, willing, and very able to turn EOIR from a disaster zone to a model of due process, innovation, best practices, fair, efficient, and practical judging, and creative judicial administration. One that other parts of the U.S. judicial system could emulate.
Will the Biden Administration heed the call, act boldly, and put the “right team” in place to save EOIR? Or will they continue past Democratic Administrations’ short-sighted undervaluation of the importance of providing constitutionally required due process, equal justice, and fundamental fairness to all persons in the U.S. including asylum applicants and other migrants.
I’ve read a number of papers and proposals on how to “fix” immigration and refugee policies. None of them appears to recognize the overriding importance of making EOIR reform “job one.”
For once, why can’t Democrats “think like Republicans?” When John Ashcroft and Kris Kobach and later Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller set out to kneecap, politicize, and weaponize the U.S. justice system, what was their “starting point?” EOIR, of course!
The Obama Administration’s abject failure to effectively address and reverse the glaring mess at EOIR left by the “Ashcroft reforms” basically set the table for Sessions’s even more invidious plan to weaponize EOIR into a tool for xenophobia and White Nationalist nativism. The problems engendered by allowing the politicization and weaponization of EOIR have crippled the U.S. justice system far beyond immigration and asylum law.
Without a better EOIR, fully empowered to lead the way legally and insure and enforce compliance, all reforms, from DACA, to detention reform, to restoration of refugee and asylum systems will be less effective, more difficult, and less enduring than they should be. Equal justice for all and an end to institutionalized racism cannot be achieved without bold EOIR reform!
It would also take some of the pressure off the Article III Courts. Time and again they are called upon, with disturbingly varying degrees of both willingness and competence in the results, to correct the endless stream of basic legal errors, abuses of due process, and inane, obviously biased and counterproductive policies regularly flowing from EOIR and DOJ. Indeed, unnecessary litigation and frivolous, ethically questionable, often factually inaccurate or intentionally misleading positions advanced by the DOJ in immigration matters now clog virtually all levels of the Article III Federal Courts right up to the docket of the Supreme Court!
So far, what I haven’t seen is a recognition by anyone on the “Biden Team” that the experts in the private bar who have been the primary fighters in the trenches, almost singlehandedly responsible for preserving American justice and saving our democracy from the Trump onslaught, must be placed where they belong: in charge of the effort to rebuild EOIR and those who will be chosen to staff it!
Continue to ignore the New Due Process Army and their ability to right the listing American ship of state at peril! It’s long past time to unleash the “problem solvers” on government and give them the resources and support necessary to use practical scholarship, technology, best practices, and “Con Law/Human Rights 101” to solve the problems!
No “magic list,” stakeholders committees, or consensus-building groups can take the place of putting expert, empowered, practical problem solvers in charge of the machinery. We can’t win the game with the best, most talented, most knowledgeable, most courageous players forever sitting on the bench!
The future of our republic might well depend on whether the Biden-Harris Administration can get beyond the past and take the courageous, far-sighted actions necessary to let EOIR lead the way to a better future of all Americans! We can only hope that they finally see the light. Before it’s too late for all of us!
Due Process Forever! Complicity & Complacency, Never!
Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
COVID-19
Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information on the relevant government websites and with colleagues on listservs as best you can.
EOIR Status Overview & EOIR Court Status Map/List: Hearings in non-detained cases at courts without an announced date are postponed through, and including, November 27, 2020. NYC non-detained remains closed for hearings.
WaPo: He will repeal the ban on almost all travel from some Muslim-majority countries, and he will reinstate the program allowing “dreamers,” who were brought to the United States illegally as children, to remain in the country, according to people familiar with his plans. See also Factbox: Here are six things Joe Biden will likely do on immigration.
AP: A federal appeals court has allowed a Trump administration rule that would deny green cards to immigrants who use public benefits like food stamps to go back into effect while it considers the case.
Gov Exec: The lone Democrat on the board of the agency tasked with administering federal labor law accused his colleagues of “sophistry” and “facetious” reasoning to strip more than 450 federal employees of their collective bargaining rights.
WaPo: Kamala Devi Harris, a daughter of Indian and Jamaican immigrants, is set to become the highest-ranking woman in the nation’s 244-year existence, as well as a high-profile representation of the country’s increasingly diverse composition.
Border Report: Most of the 600 or so migrants now living in the camp were placed in the Migrant Protection Protocols program, also known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, which requires them to wait on Mexican soil during their U.S. immigration proceedings. The asylum process can take many months, sometimes years, and some of the migrants Border Report spoke with have been living in this filthy tent encampment on the banks of the Rio Grande since 2019.
Science: ScienceInsider has learned that Jason Richwine, an independent public policy analyst, has been appointed as deputy undersecretary of commerce for science and technology and could start work as soon as today.
Gothamist: Sastre said that even if Trump loses, new detention contracts could still be signed by the time former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee, is inaugurated.
AILA is updating this practice alert as a result of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issuing a stay of the N.D. of Illinois decision to set aside the DHS Public Charge Final Rule pending appeal. All adjustment of status application must be filed with the I-944 once again. AILA Doc. No. 20110232
The AG ruled that the bar to eligibility for asylum and withholding based on persecution does not include an exception for coercion or duress, and that DHS does not have an evidentiary burden to show ineligibility based on the persecutor bar. Matter of Negusie, 28 I&N Dec. 120 (A.G. 2020) AILA Doc. No. 20110631
Unpublished BIA decision reverses denial of joint motion to reopen where respondent presented evidence indicating that she was admitted with a visa and was thus eligible to adjust status. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Acosta Carmona, 6/1/20) AILA Doc. No. 20110502
Unpublished BIA decision rescinds in absentia order due to exceptional circumstances where respondent was admitted to emergency room on morning of final hearing due to sudden onset of chest pain. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Bhardwaj, 5/28/20) AILA Doc. No. 20110501
Unpublished BIA decision reopens proceedings for respondent ordered deported under INA 237(a)(1)(D)(i) following DHS approval of waiver under INA 216(c)(4). Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Clarke, 5/27/20) AILA Doc. No. 20110500
EOIR released guidelines for the implementation of the settlement agreement in Mendez Rojas v. Wolf, which requires class members to file notice of class membership on or before 3/31/22. Individuals who establish class membership shall be deemed to have timely filed an asylum application. AILA Doc. No. 20110541
In 2019, DOJ petitioned the FLRA in an attempt to strip immigration judges (IJs) of their right to unionize. On November 2, 2020, the FLRA concluded that IJs are management officials and stripped them of their collective bargaining rights. This featured issue page provides additional resources. AILA Doc. No. 19081303
NIP: The lawsuit challenges proposed rule changes to the U.S. asylum process which are slated to go into effect on November 20. These rules are the latest step in the Trump Administration’s effort to drastically cut down the number of applicants and recipients of asylum protections in the U.S.
USCIS announced via the Form I-589 webpage that beginning 11/2/20, asylum offices will no longer accept the filing of Form I-589s that previously were filed directly with a local asylum office. These forms must be filed with the Asylum Vetting Center in Atlanta, Georgia. AILA Doc. No. 20110239
EOIR Released a memo (PM 21-03) canceling and replacing OPPM 04-06 and memorializing EOIR policies regarding the use of the telephone and video teleconferencing (VTC or VC) to conduct hearings in proceedings before an immigration judge. AILA Doc. No. 20110641
EOIR issued a policy memo (PM 21-02) rescinding Operating Policies and Procedures Memoranda (OPPRM) 13-03, Guidelines for Implementation of the ABT Settlement Agreement, and 16-01, Filing Applications for Asylum. The rescissions are effective November 6, 2020. AILA Doc. No. 20110640
President Trump issued a determination on 10/27/20, setting the refugee admissions ceiling for FY2021 at 15,000, which incorporates more than 6,000 unused places from the FY2020 ceiling. (85 FR 71219, 11/6/20) AILA Doc. No. 20102830
USCIS announced it has automatically extended the validity of EADs issued under the TPS designation for South Sudan through 5/1/21. USCIS also provided instructions for completing Form I-9 for beneficiaries who present an EAD with a category code of A12 or C19 and a Card Expires date of 11/2/20. AILA Doc. No. 20110531
EOIR final rule which finalizes the interim rule published at 84 FR 44537 on 8/26/19, with additional amendments. The rule is effective 11/3/20. (85 FR 69465, 11/3/20) AILA Doc. No. 20110238
The Outrageous Decision to Decertify the IJ’s Union
Our attention is understandably focused elsewhere right now. However, it must be mentioned that on the eve of Election Day, a panel decision of the Federal Labor Relations Authority decertified the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) as a union. While this might seem to be a minor issue at the moment, it is not. At stake is the integrity of the nation’s Immigration Courts and the life-changing decisions its judges make.
The NAIJ was formed in 1971, and was certified as the recognized collective bargaining representative of Immigration Judges in 1979, 41 years ago. It weathered a similar decertification effort in 2000. Then as now, the agency argued that Immigration Judges are managers, and thus ineligible to unionize. Under federal labor law, one is classified as a manager if their position “influences policy.” 20 years ago, both the initial decision of the Regional Director and the appeal to the FLRA resoundingly dismissed that notion. In its September 2000 decision, the FLRA agreed with the finding below that IJs are not involved in creating agency policy. The FLRA then noted that “unlike decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the decisions of Immigration Judges are not published, do not constitute precedent, are binding only on the parties to the proceedings, and are subject to de novo review. The RD accordingly concluded that the decisions of the Judges do not influence and determine the Agency’s immigration policy, in contrast to the decisions of the Board.”
In two decades, the only change to the above is that while the IJ’s findings of law remain subject to de novoreview, their findings of fact are now reviewed for clear error. Of course, facts are entirely case-specific, and thus have no influence whatsoever on policy. So as before, rather than create or influence policy, IJs implement established policy. Yet EOIR once again sought decertification. At the hearing in January, EOIR stipulated that the judges’ duties and responsibilities had not changed since the prior decision. As reported in an article covering the hearing, EOIR’s Director, James McHenry, testified that Immigration Judges are not supervisors, adding that they “are at the bottom of the org chart so they don’t supervise anything,” and further noted that “they cannot hire or fire anyone.” Nevertheless, he argued that because an Immigration Judge’s decision becomes a final ruling binding the agency if not appealed, Immigration Judges influence policy.
The Regional Director dismissed the claim based on the above arguments and testimony. But there was always a sense that the administration had something up its sleeve. That “something” turned out to be two Trump appointees, FLRA Chairperson Colleen Duffy Kiko, and FLRA Member James T. Abbott. They have jointly issued a series of decisions overturning decades of precedent to erode the rights of federal employees’ unions, a result clearly favored by the administration that appointed them. The two stayed true to form in decertifying the NAIJ. The FLRA’s lone Democratic appointee, Ernest DuBester, issued a scathing opinion in the NAIJ’s case, which concluded with the following language:
This is the antithesis of reasoned decision making. Based upon the conclusory nature of the majority’s analysis, along with the facetious manner in which it reconciles its decision with Authority precedent precluding collateral attacks on unit certifications, it is abundantly clear that the majority’s sole objective is to divest the IJs of their statutory rights. Once again, I refuse to join a decision “so fundamentally adverse to the principles and purposes of our Statute.”
By deciding in this matter, the decision violates the FLRA’s own rules regarding when such reversals of past holdings are allowed. Moreover, not that it matters to Chairperson Kiko and Member Abbott, but if allowed to stand, their decision ignoring the NAIJ’s 41 years as a certified union and reversing its own precedent without any reasoned basis will accomplish the following damage.
First, Immigration Judges would lose their voice, collective bargaining rights, ability to be individually defended by their union representative, and their ability to push back against the relentless attack on their independence, neutrality, and ability to fulfill their proper function as a check against executive branch overreach. Second, NAIJ officers have remained the only Immigration Judges able to allow the public to peek behind the scenes at these tribunals, by speaking at law schools and conferences (with the exception of management level judges who may be permitted to state the party line, sometimes by reading it from index cards). As several leading scholars explained in an article in Slate: “Judges and asylum officers are being instructed to decide cases in ways that many contend are contrary to law. A virtual gag rule has been placed on them in the context of law schools and the broader public. This denies information to coming generations of lawyers and eliminates public discourse on some of the most critical civil rights issues of our time.”
But of great importance is a point I raised last year in an article I wrote forLaw360 on the decertification effort: the administration’s citing to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lucia v. SEC:
while irrelevant to the management inquiry, the citing of Lucia points to another motive of the DOJ. In a leaked internal memo, the Justice Department indicated its interpretation of the decision as a basis to bypass the Merit System Protection Board, allowing the Administration to more easily terminate ALJs whose decisions don’t align with its political views. Such actions would constitute a troubling attempt by the executive branch to influence case outcomes. Similarly, decertifying the NAIJ would simplify the removal of IJs whose decisions are at odds with the administration’s stated immigration goals by eliminating the present collective bargaining agreement’s right to an independent arbitrator in matters concerning IJ discipline and termination.
Just prior to the FLRA’s decision, an executive order creating a schedule of career federal employees who can be more easily fired for purely political reasons (such as issuing decisions not in line with the administration’s views). By ruling that IJs influence agency policy (contrary to its prior decision), the FLRA has put the Immigration Judges squarely in the crosshairs of the new executive order. To be clear: Immigration Judges whose neutral and independent application of the law would lead them to issue decisions the administration doesn’t like would be subject to easy termination. And of course, having just lost their union, those judges will have lost their best means of challenging such termination. Then, the hiring of their replacements would become even more nakedly partisan.
While it seems as I write this there will be a new administration come January, that doesn’t render this issue irrelevant. First, the earlier decertification effort in 2000 occurred under a Democratic administration. Second, leaving the above ruling in place would allow it be used as a weapon in the ways described by any subsequent administration. Whatever one’s political leanings or views on immigration, we should all be able to agree that decisions of such importance should be rendered by fair, neutral judges by applying law to facts, protected from rank political pressures.
The creation of an Article I Immigration Court is ultimately the most durable way to guarantee the independence of these vital tribunals, but the evisceration or protections caused by allowing this decision to stand is too egregious to ignore even in the short term. It is therefore hoped that readers will amplify the news of the decision and all it means. It is hoped those with the capacity to do so will provide amicus or other legal support for further actions by the NAIJ to legally challenge the FLRA decision. And the decision must be brought to the attention of an incoming Biden administration, which has so much damage to correct
There also needs to be consequences for those who abandoned their obligation of fairness and neutrality under the present administration. FLRA Member DuBester is to be applauded for continuing to strongly voice his defense of justice in the dissent. But perhaps a Biden administration can assess whether Kiko and Abbott might be better suited for other work.
Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved. reprinted with permission.
***********************
Thanks for speaking out so forcefully and articulately, my friend,
I am confident that the Biden-Harris Administration will correct this egregious miscarriage of justice. As “Good Government” folks, I’m also confident that they they will constructively address the disgraceful dysfunctional mess at EOIR that threatens to topple the American justice system. We will finally have “problem solvers” leading our Government! That will make a positive difference for all Americans.
About 11:30 AM yesterday, I was on our screen porch working on Courtside. I heard the first joyful shouts. Simultaneously, my iPad screen told me that Pennsylvania had been called for Biden. I bellowed out a loud, YES! Then, I put up our American flag.
At 5 PM, by arrangement on the neighborhood e-Mail, folks started streaming out their doors, standing on the curb, glasses and champaign bottles in hand, for a toast to Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, the return of democracy, rationality, and human decency. Then we mixed and mingled, of course in a socially distant way. Dogs and kids were welcome. “Finally, able to breathe again” was a common refrain, as was “national nightmare coming to an end.”
Our neighbors are from all backgrounds and many different origins: doctors, lawyers, teachers, techies, designers, consultants, Federal bureaucrats, immigrants, parents, grandparents, singles. One mother had been naturalized just so she could vote in this election. All of us shared relief and joy at the return of sane, humane sound government and informed, reasonable dialogue on how to resolve our pressing national problems.
Later we adjourned to a back yard fire pit and celebrated and chatted some more, before drifting away to our respective homes. Cathy and I left the empty bottles and plastic cups on our lawn, intending to clean up in the daylight. But, by the time we arose, one of the neighbors had already done the job for us.
The aura of optimism still hung in the air today. At least for now, the world looks a lot brighter than it did four years ago.
Official portrait of Vice President Joe Biden in his West Wing Office at the White House, Jan. 10, 2013. (Official White House Photo by David Lienemann).Vice President Elect Kamala Harris Official Senate Photo Public Realm
🇺🇸🗽⚖️👍😎COURTSIDE ELECTION SPECIAL: HARRIS, BIDEN, DEMOCRACY BIG WINNERS — THIS TIME AROUND, THE MAJORITY RULES, AS DEM DUO SWEEPS TO VICTORY IN BOTH POPULAR VOTE AND ELECTORAL COLLEGE!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
Nov. 7, 2020. Vice President and soon to be President Elect Joe Biden’s 33-year long quest for the U.S. Presidency will come to fruition on January 20, 2021. His running mate and soon to be Vice President Elect Senator Kamala Harris will become the first woman and the first African American to hold the number two job.
Although the results of the Presidential contest were long in coming, they basically fulfilled pre-election predictions. Harris-Biden are on pace to win a clear majority of the popular vote by over four million votes, in the process compiling the highest vote total in U.S. election history.
Unlike 2016, this time the popular vote translates into an insurmountable 59 vote margin and a majority in the electoral college. Fittingly, Biden’s apparent victory in Pennsylvania put him over the top. But, with the Biden Harris team in the lead in the “undecided” states of Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia that electoral margin seems likely to widen when the final vote is tabulated. Only the remaining states of Alaska and North Carolina appear to be falling into the Trump column, which would still leave the soon-to-be former President woefully short of an electoral majority.
Indeed, he is now on pace to lose by the same electoral majority than he compiled in defeating Clinton notwithstanding losing the popular vote to her by millions. At that time, Trump characterized his electoral college victory as a “landslide,” notwithstanding his very clear defeat in the popular vote. While compiling a head-scratchingly large cult-like following of tens of millions that propelled him to victory on 2016 and helped prop up his bizarrely incompetent presidency, Trump was never popular with the majority of Americans, except in his own muddled mind.
In winning a convincing victory, if not the overwhelming one that Democrats hoped for and that many pundits and pollsters predicted, Biden/Harris appear to have held every state won by Hillary Clinton in 2016 while “flipping” Biden’s birth state of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin by narrow margins. If their narrow current leads in Arizona and Georgia hold, they will add “flips” of these traditional GOP strongholds to their list of election achievements.
Biden becomes only the third candidate since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 to unseat a sitting elected President, the others being President Ronald Reagan and President Bill Clinton. (President Jimmy Carter unseated President Gerald Ford in 1980, but Ford was never elected to either the Vice Presidency or the Presidency.) Biden also becomes the fourth Vice President in the past 70 years to later win a Presidential election.
Harris is a graduate of Howard University and Cal Hastings Law. Her win is a huge milestone for “historically black colleges” and their many talented graduates throughout our nation.
Biden is a graduate of the University of Delaware and Syracuse Law. The Harris-Biden tandem may be the first time that “non—Ivy” lawyers have held both of our top elected positions. That’s a tribute to the many fine law schools outside the Ivy League that produce the vast majority of the nation’s legal talent and fuel most of the “practical lawyering and usable scholarship” that keeps our legal system afloat.
Hopefully, our new leaders will keep that in mind when filling key positions in their upcoming Administration and particularly in making Federal Judicial appointments at all levels. That’s especially important considering the disturbing failure of many graduates of so-called “elite” law schools serving us as public officials and judges to effectively and courageously stand up to the all out assault on the rule of law, ethics, constitutionally required due process and equal protection, and human decency by the Trump regime.
Any surviving functionality and integrity in our courts and public institutions is largely the result of courageous and under-appreciated attorneys, many working pro bono, who have fought at the “retail level” of our justice system to preserve those human rights and fundamental values upon which our legal system rests. All too often, they suffered bullying and abuse from the cowardly Trump regime for their efforts, while life-tenured Federal Judges failed in their duty to intercede to protect officers of their courts and their clients whose rights were being trampled by a group of out of control White Nationalist bigots.
Thus, the Biden-Harris team will enter what is probably the most consequential Presidency in U.S. history at one of the most most difficult and contentious times. With an out of control pandemic, high unemployment, rapidly deteriorating environment, festering racism, looming healthcare, opioid, and educational crises, cratering international prestige, trade wars, a crippled and demoralized career civil service, a failing judicial system, dysfunctional immigration and refugee systems, lack of trust in Government, disquiet in the intelligence and military communities, lack of competent Executive leadership over the past four years, and about 70.3 million Americans essentially living “in a parallel universe” but still our fellow citizens and essential to our society, saving American democracy would be a daunting task for any leaders. Some would say “mission impossible.” But, I can’t think of anyone better suited than the Biden-Harris team to undertake that mission.
In a democracy, successful outcomes are never guaranteed. But, if our democracy turns out to be beyond reclamation, it almost certainly will be because “We the People” fail to give our new leaders the support they need and deserve.
As for Trump, ever the total boor and purveyor of hate, division, and lies, he sent a missive from his golf course saying that he wouldn’t concede and pledged to continue to pelt our already crumbling court system with yet more frivolous litigation. Thankfully, most news commentators chose to read only a few lines of his incoherent rant before returning to the real news surrounding Biden and Harris. How quickly even the most bombastic ones with the biggest egos become “yesterday’s news.”
So, unsurprisingly, Trump, who undoubtedly will go down as the worst, most corrupt, and least competent President in U.S. history, will exit with the same disturbing lack of class, honesty, and fundamental human decency that has characterized his four-year “nightmare reign.” Meanwhile, as he relaxes, pouts, and sulks on the links, the pandemic that he failed to take reasonable steps to address or control, and consistently and dishonestly tried to downplay, continues to rage unabated and ravish our nation.
One of the hardest hit areas: The Upper Midwest, particularly my native state of Wisconsin. That might explain why today Trump is playing golf and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are sharing center stage! For a change, its nice to have folks who represent some of the most admirable human qualities that America has produced getting their time in the spotlight.
The good news: After 12:01 PM on January 20, 2021, the majority of us won’t care about the antisocial antics of the biggest loser of this election!
