ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Blog Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan certainly seems to be trying to get a lot of mileage out the single word "may" with regard to the Attorney General's authority to grant asylum in the applicable statute.

    I would respectfully suggest that one single word in a statute such as this one is a shaky foundation to build the huge edifice of unlimited presidential power over asylum that Nolan is trying to construct.

    The danger in Nolan's argument is not just that thousands, or millions of people fleeing persecution and seeking safety in America might have to choose less satisfactory forms of relief.

    The danger is that if the president (or someone he appoints) is anointed as a dictator over the lives and futures of asylum applicants, it will not be long before he winds up with the same unlimited power over the lives and fate of the American people as well.

    Abraham Lincoln famously stated that America could not endure half slave and half free. It is just as true that America cannot last as half fascist (in the area of immigration policy) and half democratic (with regard to the rights of American citizens).

    A president who has the power to deny asylum just on his say so - without any reason (other than not liking the color of the applicant's skin) will not hesitate -perhaps one day sooner that we think - to claim the power to send anyone who opposes him - whether "enemy of the people" journalists, a "crooked" leader of the opposition party, or judges with the wrong "Mexican heritage" to jail - again just on his own say so.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 08-13-2018 at 09:15 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan is right that the Democrats in the Gang of Eight and in the Senate were willing to give up the Diversity Visa lottery (not family immigration which has affected many more immigrants over the years than the Diversity Visa) in return for a CIR that would have legalized millions of unauthorized immigrants.

    This was not because the Democrats were against the lottery. They were only taking Nolan's frequently repeated advice that a truly bipartisan deal has to serve the political interests of both parties.

    An open, give and take discussion is the best way to illuminate points relating to immigration law and policy.

    Rewriting history is not.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 08-10-2018 at 05:21 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Here's a hypo: Suppose Donald Trump said to the Democrats (and moderate Republicans) that he is willing to sign a law granting full permanent resident status to every single "illegal alien" in the US today if Congress agrees to repeal the immigration reform law of 1965 which eliminated the race based "national origins" immigration quotas of the 1924 immigration act, and reinstate that openly racist law - which barred most of the world's population except Northern Europeans ("Countries like Norway," in Trumpspeak) from immigrating to the US.

    Would any Senator or Congressman today vote to go back to those days, no matter how generous the legalization proposal was?

    Steve King and Tom Cotton might, for sure. Sessions also voiced support for returning to that racist 1924 statute when he was a Senator.

    Certainly, no Democrat would ever consider such a monstrous proposal. Nor would very many of today's Republicans.

    But Trump is, in effect offering something similar on a more limited scale: Legalize a handful of immigrants - namely some DACA recipients as the price for abolishing the visa lottery and most family immigration - the backbones of racial equality and diversity in our current system - in favor of a phony "merit based" system designed to favor immigrants from wealthy countries with wide access to education - i.e. Europe.

    That is just a modified, mini-version of the hypo I gave above.

    Of course the answer from the Democrats - and fair-minded Republicans - has to be "No Deal".

    Does that mean that they are anti-immigrant or don't want to help the Dreamers?

    Of course not. It only means that they don't want to be mugged or held hostage on immigration policy.

    Or look at it it this way in terms of football:

    The Democrats arguably dropped the ball on immigration during President Obama's first term.

    But Trump and his Republican enablers are now running off with the goalposts. Which is more serious?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 08-09-2018 at 05:51 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan is absolutely right about a legalization program being the only realistic solution to the immigration court backlog and to the presence of large numbers of unauthorized immigrants.

    However, suggesting that Trump is willing to work with the Democrats on legalization but the Democrats might not be willing to work with him may be good political propaganda and Fox News material, but the reality is far more complicated.

    First, Trump has made demonizing and vilifying Latino and other brown immigrants the centerpiece of this fall's election campaign by constantly suggesting that all immigration, including legal immigration, is associated violent crime and terrorism, including a very small group with only 10,000 members in the US known as MS-13.

    If he supports any kind of large-scale legalization, he is going to have a big problem with the same base voters whose hatred of Latino, black and Middle Eastern immigrants he is inflaming in the same way that Adolf Hitler inflamed the prejudices of ordinary Germans against the Jews - for a much more deadly purpose to be sure - Trump is NOT an antisemite, a Nazi, or a supporter of genocide, and I have made this absolutely clear in everything I have written about him.

    Even when Trump first proposed a very limited DACA legalization, there were anguished cries of "Amnesty Don" from his own right wing,

    Second, Trump is making it impossible for Democrats to work with him on legalization by insisting on major cuts in legal immigration - ones which are obviously intended to affect mainly non-white parts of the world which Trump calls "shithole" countries, as the price for any kind of legalization.

    As long as Trump continues to base his immigration policies on race - to appeal to white voters who are unwilling to accept the fact that America is a racially diverse country and becoming more so, with white people in general inevitably becoming one more of the respected and valuable minority groups which have done so much to make this country truly great (such as Jewish, Italian, German, Norwegian, African, Haitian, Iranian, Afghan, Chinese, Vietnamese, Somali, Cuban, Honduran and Mexican immigrants, to name only a very few) there will be no legalization and no solution to either the court backlog or the problem of illegal immigration in general.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 08-06-2018 at 08:17 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I cannot argue with Nolan's point about the broad power given the president to exclude immigrants, even when doing so violates the freedom of religion of US citizens, in the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision upholding the latest version of Trump's Muslim ban. That decision could be the beginning of the end of democracy in America as we know it.

    Some of Trump's avowedly white nationalist supporters (and I am not by any means implying that everyone who supports or defends Trump is a white nationalist or white supremacist) may no doubt pleased to see the president being granted more and more power to keep legal immigrants from entering the United States because they have the "wrong" color, religion or national origin - just our laws provided for 40 years beginning in 1924.

    But authoritarian power to ban, exclude or expel unpopular minorities never confines itself to those groups for very long.

    If any US president is given the power of an emperor to ban unpopular immigrants for any reason he (or she) chooses (as the Roman emperor Tiberius expelled the Jews from that city in A.D. 19), merely by using the magic words "national security" to paper over obvious racial or religious hatred, as in the Muslim ban case, it is only a matter of time before opponents of that same president will start to disappear in the middle of the night, as is the norm in Vladimir Putin's Russia.

    If and when that happens, independent historians (assuming there are any left) could well look back on the Supreme Court's Muslim ban decision as the tipping point where it all began.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 08-06-2018 at 11:44 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    In a May 23 article which can be accessed through Google (I do not have a link), Antonio Olivo of the Washington Post reports that, according to the ACLU, there were allegedly widespread, horrifying abuses committed against unaccompanied minors from Central America and elsewhere under the Obama administration, involving thousands of children, as shown in 30,000 documents. Olivo writes that, according to the allegations, the children were:
    "...repeatedly beaten, sexually abused, and deprived of food and medical care by federal border agents."

    In the same article, he states:

    "U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agents allegedly used stun guns on the minors for amusement or punishment, kicked them and threatened to rape or kill them. The ACLU report...says agents routinely kept minors in detention cells with frigid temperatures, forcing them to sleep on concrete floors"

    If there is any truth at all to these allegations, then Obama is just as big a criminal as Trump allegedly is and they both belong in jail for violating US and international laws against torture, as well as in the lowest circle of Hell.

    I am not a philosopher and cannot make a moral judgment as to who is worse, Obama for pretending to respect justice and human rights while these atrocities were allegedly going on, or Trump for reveling in equally horrific alleged violence, hatred, bigotry and abuse against young children whose only "crime" was that they had brown skin and were nit from "Countries like Norway".

    But the great majority of us, including myself, should have paid more attention to what was going on during the Obama years, and I personally apologize for and regret the fact that I did not.

    Does this past history in any way excuse or mitigate the horrors that Trump is allegedly inflicting on immigrant children now, or his clear and present danger to the future of America's freedom and democracy?

    Of course not. Donald Trump is the president of the United States now. Barack Obama is not. No matter how horrible Obama's abuses of innocent immigrants children may allegedly have been in the past, they are not excuses for the ones that Trump is allegedly carrying out now.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 08-01-2018 at 08:33 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I am not going to waste any more time trying to educate Roger. If he wants to understand why "may" means that granting relief is discretionary, he can do some reading on how that term has been interpreted by the courts. It wouldn't hurt if he read the provisions on withholding and on Torture Convention relief too so he can see examples of the language used for mandatory grants of relief.

    He also should read the Supreme Court's travel ban decision's interpretation of the president's power to keep aliens out of the country pursuant to section 212(f) of the Act.

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 08-01-2018 at 01:48 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  8. MKolken's Avatar
    What was your opinion when people on the right questioned whether Obama would invoke martial law?
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I of course agree that no child should ever die as a result of being in immigration custody no matter who the president is. Nor have I ever claimed that Trump is the first or only president to have been in office while immigrants were being abused.

    The difference is that, according to news reports which I refer to in my previous comments, including but not limited to a Huffington Post report of court affidavits alleging that CBP agents are force-feeding drugs to children and making teenage girls strip naked in front of guards, see:

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10736

    Trump's regime is taking previous abuses to new levels - or, more accurately, sinking to new depths.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 08-01-2018 at 01:27 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  10. MKolken's Avatar
    Still doesn't answer the question because refugee children also died after release from family detention after being deported by Obama.
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I am writing about the one who was president when an innocent child died after being released from family detention, according an August 1 ilw.com blog comment by another attorney.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  12. MKolken's Avatar
    Are you talking about Obama or Trump?
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    With all due respect to Nolan, an argument that the statutory language saying that the "Attorney General" may grant asylum to people meeting certain requirements gives the president or his administration uncontrolled power to deny asylum at will, or as Nolan suggests, suspend all asylum grants, is quite a stretch.

    Can Nolan point to any US court decision (I am not talking about courts in communist or fascist countries here - of course, they would go along with whatever the Leader wants) which has upheld this kind of totalitarian power?

    Granted, Judge Brett Kavanaugh might very well uphold such power, based on reports of decisions and writings which would indicate that he views the president as someone with the effective power of a dictator, totally above the law.

    This is why his confirmation to the US Supreme Court could prove to be a disaster, not only for immigrants, but for our democracy. It is frightening to read reports of plans to move ahead with his confirmation hearings on a "business as usual " basis, as if nothing exceptional were at stake.

    With this cheerful thought, I will close my ilw.com comments until the beginning of September and wish all ilw.com readers a good month of August.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 07-31-2018 at 08:11 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  14. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Paul Schmidt made the following comment about my article when he posted it on his blog, http://immigrationcourtside.com

    I agree with Nolan that legalization should be the focus.
    I have also made a similar observation that during the first two years of the Obama Administration, Democrats could have solved what have become the three most pressing problems on the domestic front:


    • Legalization;
    • Dreamer relief; and
    • An independent U.S. Immigration Court.


    Our country and the good folks caught up the in current system are paying the price every day for these failures. But, past is past. The important thing is not to make the same mistakes again if and when the Democrats and whatever “moderate” Republicans still remain get a chance to act.

    I hope he is right in thinking that the Democrats just made a mistake when they didn't do those things when they had the chance, as opposed to the implication I drew in my article that helping the "undocumented aliens" just isn't important to them.

    Nolan Rappaport
  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger says, “If both Nolan, in his comments, and Sessions, in his speech, had limited themselves to the idea of directing Immigration Judges to follow certain alleged BIA precedents, that would be understandable as a matter of legal interpretation consistent with a democratic judicial system. To be sure, in his recent A-B-decision, this is what Sessions purported to do (even though he do not provide any meaningful legal discussion of analysis in that decision for his conclusion that gang violence would not normally be a basis for asylum -as opposed to domestic violence, which he did discuss in detail and provide a rationale for).”

    Roger brought that decision into the discussion with his comments about Session. If my memory is not right on that point, something he said made me think he was referring to it.

    But he is right that Sessions didn’t justify his comment on gang violence. Nevertheless, Session’s observation that it is not normally accepted is correct. In 2014, CRS wrote a memorandum on this topic. It includes the following comment in the summary section:

    When considered by the BIA or appellate courts in light of how the INA’s definition of refugee is construed, claims to asylum based on gang-related violence frequently (although not inevitably) fail. In some cases, this is because the harm experienced or feared by the alien is seen not as persecution, but as generalized lawlessness or criminal activity. In other cases, persecution has been found to be lacking because governmental ineffectiveness in controlling the gangs is distinguished from inability or unwillingness to control them. In yet other cases, any persecution that is found is seen as lacking the requisite connection to a protected ground, and instead arising from activities “typical” to gangs, such as extortion and recruitment of new members. The particular social group articulated by the alien (e.g., former gang members, recruits) may also been seen as lacking a “common, immutable characteristic,” social visibility (now, social distinction), or particularity.


    Roger says, “But whether certain alleged Board precedents should be followed on certain specific claimed grounds for asylum is an issue that is far narrower and more specific than the topic of Nolan's above article, as stated in his opening words.”

    It’s a TRAC report, not one of my articles.

    Roger says, “As I have pointed about above, Nolan's statement strongly implies that Sessions needs to see to it at all asylum claims will have a much higher rejection rate than in the past, not just claims covered by one a particular BIA decision or decisions.”

    No, my point is that most asylum applicants fail to establish eligibility for asylum.

    Roger says, “Nolan also says that denying CFR claims in general is necessary to accomplish a political goal of reducing court backlogs in order to speed up deportations. This is very different from saying that a particular doctrine of asylum law should be modified in accordance with certain claimed BIA precedent decisions.”

    Not really. My point is that finding credible fear improperly has become a serious problem because it contributes to the immigration court backlog crisis.

    Roger says, “In the same way, Sessions' October 2017 speech to immigration judges, at least as I read it, was not phrased in terms of upholding certain alleged BIA precedents, but was clearly an attack on asylum claimants in general as very bad people who were trying to take advantage of the system and damage America.”

    Putting aside Roger’s negative spin, Sessions’ point is that most of them are making bogus claims.

    Roger asks, “How does that fit in with the general principle of US law that each case should be decided on its own merits without prejudgment?”

    In fact, Sessions makes that point in his asylum decision when he overrules the domestic violence precedent because it didn’t follow the rigorous analysis necessary for finding a legitimate persecution claim.

    Rogers says, “Nolan then goes on to suggest that Donald Trump has the discretionary power to deny all asylum claims, not just those covered by a given decision or set of BIA decisions, and that he may have to do so in order to speed up deportations.”

    Yes, that’s what I said. But it’s not something Trump is claiming. The statutory asylum language in the INA makes it a matter of discretion, not Trump. I explain this in one of my articles.

    Can Trump refuse asylum to aliens who make illegal entries? (July 12, 2018),
    http://thehill.com/opinion/immigrati...llegal-entries

    Nolan Rappaport
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    If both Nolan, in his comments, and Sessions, in his speech, had limited themselves to the idea of directing Immigration Judges to follow certain alleged BIA precedents, that would be understandable as a matter of legal interpretation consistent with a democratic judicial system. To be sure, in his recent A-B-decision, this is what Sessions purported to do (even though he do not provide any meaningful legal discussion of analysis in that decision for his conclusion that gang violence would not normally be a basis for asylum -as opposed to domestic violence, which he did discuss in detail and provide a rationale for).

    But whether certain alleged Board precedents should be followed on certain specific claimed grounds for asylum is an issue that is far narrower and more specific than the topic of Nolan's above article, as stated in his opening words.

    As I have pointed about above, Nolan's statement strongly implies that Sessions needs to see to it at all asylum claims will have a much higher rejection rate than in the past, not just claims covered by one a particular BIA decision or decisions.

    Nolan also says that denying CFR claims in general is necessary to accomplish a political goal of reducing court backlogs in order to speed up deportations. This is very different from saying that a particular doctrine of asylum law should be modified in accordance with certain claimed BIA precedent decisions.

    In the same way, Sessions' October 2017 speech to immigration judges, at least as I read it, was not phrased in terms of upholding certain alleged BIA precedents, but was clearly an attack on asylum claimants in general as very bad people who were trying to take advantage of the system and damage America.

    How does that fit in with the general principle of US law that each case should be decided on its own merits without prejudgment?

    One does not have to be an asylum law specialist (and I am not) in order to see the difference between day and night.

    Nolan then goes on to suggest that Donald Trump has the discretionary power to deny all asylum claims, not just those covered by a given decision or set of BIA decisions, and that he may have to do so in order to speed up deportations.

    I will not comment further on that suggestion, but will leave it up to ilw.com readers to decide for themselves whether making the right to asylum under our laws dependent on the will of the chief executive is consistent with the workings of a democracy, or with some other form of government.

    Nolan also calls me "irrational" when I make reference to Trump's attacks on both legal and unauthorized immigrants and suggest that these presidential statements about (overwhelmingly non-white) immigrants could be poisoning the entire immigration system, including but not limited to deportation.

    Nolan is certainly right to use the term 'irrational", but this word properly applies to Trump's own attacks on immigrants.

    I am only referring to these attacks, which, whether Nolan likes it or not, are matters of record and are indefensible on any rational basis, such as when Trump talks about immigrants using the language of exterminators

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...mmigrants.html

    I might also remind Nolan that, in our system of government, even executive discretion over immigration, broad as it is, is subject to the rule of not being arbitrary and capricious, and I would respectfully urge him to reread a recent 10th Circuit decision, with which I am sure he is already no doubt quite familiar, blocking the deportation of an "illegal alien" whose record clearly did not put him among the "good guys"; because, in that judge's view, the executive had abused its discretion.

    The case is called Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch (August 23, 2016) and the judge's name was Neil Gorsuch.

    I value Nolan's expertise and his opinions very highly and I hope he will not think that it is "irrational" of me to mention this decision, even if it supports a proposition of limits to executive power over immigration that might conflict with Nolan's own views of unlimited executive discretion over asylum.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law


    Updated 07-31-2018 at 08:00 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  17. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    To quote an admittedly hackneyed expression that has been around for more years than anyone can remember, if Donald Trump is the only friend that immigrants have, then they don't need any enemies.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Curious. That's how I would describe what you are doing to them.

    Nolan Rappaport
  18. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar


    Roger asks, “Is Nolan saying here that Sessions needs to ensure that Immigration Judges approve CFR applications far less often and deny them much more frequently than before in order to accomplish a political goal for preventing Trump's enforcement efforts from being a failure?”

    Yes, but Roger is overlooking the fact that most of the persecution claims being accepted should have been rejected.


    Roger asks, “If Nolan is in fact recommending that Sessions should take action to ensure more CFR denials and fewer approvals, isn't that equivalent to tipping the scales of justice by the Attorney General of the United States - who is sworn to defend the rule of law rather than to tell judges what results he wants in a given type of case?”

    It would be if he encouraged them to deny legitimate persecution claims, but that is not what he is doing. The asylum precedent decision he just issued didn’t create new asylum law. It just overruled a badly written precedent that permitted domestic abuse to be a persecution ground. Prior to that decision, Board precedent had rejected such claims.

    It also pointed out the difficulty in basing a persecution claim on gang violence, which until fairly recently, was considered a crime, not persecution.

    Roger asks, “Isn't government pressure on judges to reach a predetermined result something that is done in dictatorships rather than in democratic countries?”

    Perhaps, but as I have just explained. That isn’t what he did. He just reinstated long-standing Board precedent.

    Roger asks, “And if putting a political goal such as preventing Trump's "enforcement program" from being a "dismal failure" (to use Nolan's words) is more important that a just decision based on the law and facts of each case at hand in America, how can this country call itself a democracy any longer?”

    This question brings me back to Roger’s lack of knowledge about asylum law. Asylum is discretionary. The US doesn’t have to ever grant asylum. Using the supreme court travel ban decision as his guide, Trump could issue an executive order suspending all asylum grants until the immigration court backlog has been eliminated. In fact, I predict that he will do that if he can’t get it under control by reigning in credible fear findings that are inconsistent with long standing board precedent.

    That doesn’t mean that he will be able to ignore credible fear determinations. Withholding of deportation and torture convention relief, which are mandatory forms of relief, would still be available, but they just bar an alien’s return to a country where persecution is more likely than not or the alien would be tortured. Asylum just requires a well-founded fear, which means something less than a fifty-fifty chance.

    All he would have to do is arrange to transfer them to a refugee camp in a country that won’t persecute or torture them.

    Roger says, “Unfortunately, the idea that Sessions may be using his hands to tip the scales of justice in CFR cases comes not just from Nolan's above comments - if this is indeed what Nolan really meant to say - and I would like to give Nolan the benefit of the doubt here, if at all possible.”

    The scales of justice were put in storage when the Obama administration made credible fear determinations that were inconsistent with long-standing board precedent.

    Roger says, “Completely apart from Nolan's comment, one also gets the impression that Sessions is trying to tip the scales of justice by reading the AG's own October 12, 2017 speech to Immigration Judges at the EOIR office in Virginia. See:

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/a...gration-review

    This is not the place to go into that speech in full detail, but it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Sessions begins with the predetermined view that most, if not all, asylum applicants are fraudsters with fake claims aimed at subverting America's "sovereignty" and ability to control its own borders.”

    That’s a stretch. But it is basically true. Most asylum seekers come here to get away from violence and crime and to establish a better life for themselves and their families. Very understandable. I won’t fault them for doing it. But those problems are not a legitimate basis for a persecution claim.

    Roger says, “Sessions loses no opportunity to make clear that any IJ who hears a CFR case objectively and without this kind of negative mindset, might well very soon have his or her own personal "credible fear" to deal with - fear of being fired by the Attorney General.’

    Absolutely, judges and board members who refuse to follow precedent will be fired.

    Roger starts getting irrational at this point, so I will stop.
  19. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I have to confess that I am more than a little puzzled by the two opening paragraphs in this article and I would appreciate it if Nolan could clarify what he means by them.

    First, Nolan states:

    "I predicted this development. This is the only way Sessions can reduce the immigration court backlog..."

    Then, in apparent explanation of what that "development" is that Nolan is referring to, he quotes from an independent (TRAC) report as follows:

    "Immigration Court outcomes in credible fear reviews (CFR) have recently undergone a dramatic change. Starting in January 2018, court findings of credible fear began to plummet. By June, 2018 only 14.7 of the CFR Immigration Court decisions found the asylum seeker had a 'credible fear.' This was just half the level that had prevailed during the last six months of 2017."

    Putting these two paragraphs together, it would appear that Nolan is holding Sessions directly responsible for the ensuring the "development" of a dramatic increase in CFR denials and resulting deportations. It would also appear that Nolan approves of this intervention by Sessions because, as Nolan writes above, that is the only way to avoid making Trump look bad through a "dismal failure" in his "enforcement program."

    I find only one problem with this analysis, and I am raising it, not in the spirit of polemics or argumentation, but in an effort to be sure that I understand Nolan's point and to be fair to Nolan.

    Is Nolan saying here that Sessions needs to ensure that Immigration Judges approve CFR applications far less often and deny them much more frequently than before in order to accomplish a political goal for preventing Trump's enforcement efforts from being a failure?

    If Nolan is in fact recommending that Sessions should take action to ensure more CFR denials and fewer approvals, isn't that equivalent to tipping the scales of justice by the Attorney General of the United States - who is sworn to defend the rule of law rather than to tell judges what results he wants in a given type of case?

    Isn't government pressure on judges to reach a predetermined result something that is done in dictatorships rather than in democratic countries?

    And if putting a political goal such as preventing Trump's "enforcement program" from being a "dismal failure" (to use Nolan's words) is more important that a just decision based on the law and facts of each case at hand in America, how can this country call itself a democracy any longer?

    Unfortunately, the idea that Sessions may be using his hands to tip the scales of justice in CFR cases comes not just from Nolan's above comments - if this is indeed what Nolan really meant to say - and I would like to give Nolan the benefit of the doubt here, if at all possible.

    Completely apart from Nolan's comment, one also gets the impression that Sessions is trying to tip the scales of justice by reading the AG's own October 12, 2017 speech to Immigration Judges at the EOIR office in Virginia. See:

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/a...gration-review

    This is not the place to go into that speech in full detail, but it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Sessions begins with the predetermined view that most, if not all, asylum applicants are fraudsters with fake claims aimed at subverting America's "sovereignty" and ability to control its own borders.

    Sessions loses no opportunity to make clear that any IJ who hears a CFR case objectively and without this kind of negative mindset, might well very soon have his or her own personal "credible fear" to deal with - fear of being fired by the Attorney General.

    One may try to excuse this travesty of everything that Americans have been taught from childhood to believe in as justice and the rule of law in a free society, because, as Trump claims , credible fear claimants are all just a bunch of "illegal aliens" anyway - with a connotation that they are somehow less than human, as is also apparent from Trump's rhetoric that immigrants from Latin America (and Africa, Asia and the Middle East) are "invading" and "infesting" America - as if they were rats or vermin.

    Admittedly, Sessions does not use such openly dehumanizing language in talking about asylum seekers with CFR cases in Immigration Court.

    But the echoes of Trump's dehumanizing rhetoric are plainly apparent in the negative and hostile language of Sessions' above speech, and as a member of the bar for over 50 years, and as someone whose first law firm job right out of law school included working for a lawyer representing Martin Luther King Jr., I cannot avoid a sense of shock in seeing the chief law enforcement officer of the US use language about immigrants that might be more appropriate to a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia - or to one of Donald Trump's own rallies.

    Overturning the rule of law to accomplish the goals of whoever is in power is not something that can be confined to just one tribunal, even if that tribunal is under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General.

    Like a cancer, this assault on the very essence of what a legal proceeding in any tribunal anywhere is supposed to constitute can ultimately destroy our entire judicial system and our democracy.

    This is why I am respectfully asking Nolan if he can clarify his above comment and explain what he means when he writes abou

    "the only way Sessions can reduce the Immigration Court backlog".

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law



    Updated 07-30-2018 at 11:17 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  20. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    To quote an admittedly hackneyed expression that has been around for more years than anyone can remember, if Donald Trump is the only friend that immigrants have, then they don't need any enemies.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
Page 1 of 144 1231151101 ... LastLast
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: