☠️☹️ "AMERICA'S MOST BROKEN COURT!" — Jeremy McKinney "Outs" EOIR on Slate!

Jennings12@aol.com

Nov 1

Appearing before EOIR courts can be highly stressful -- not everyone survives the ordeal! Here, a 3-judge panel deliberates the fate of an asylum seeker using traditional methods.

Jeremy McKinney, Esquire
Greensboro, NC
AILA President

Jeremy writes:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/the-most-broken-court-in-america.html

As Congress returns to action after House Republicans were finally able to elect a speaker of the House following a weekslong impasse, one area they seem determined to address is border policy. Unfortunately, there seems to be much less interest in tackling one of the most important parts of our immigration system: immigration courts.

To put it mildly, there are a lot of misunderstandings about immigration court, and how things work or don't work. As someone who's been working in immigration courts for 25 years, I can say there are a myriad of ways things can and should be better.

First, the distances between immigration courts and the people who need to use them are often vast. My office is in Greensboro, North Carolina; my immigration court is in Charlotte. My clients typically travel from two to five hours to appear in court.

I once represented two children—a brother and sister from Central America—in immigration court proceedings. They had been sold by their father into domestic servitude and then abused by the people who trafficked them. The children escaped and reached the United States.

To prove they deserved asylum under our laws, they had to share what happened to them. The brother was so young, he struggled to articulate the horrors he experienced, while his older sister bore the deep scars of trauma, ones so severe that she had attempted to take her own life while her case in court was pending.

As horrifying and clear-cut as their stories seemed, the siblings faced a bewildering array of legal challenges. Their notices to appear lacked any hearing date, leaving them confused about when to appear. Immigration judges frequently order people removed for not appearing, despite the countless examples of ways in which the bureaucracy fails to inform people what their obligations are.

Before filing their asylum applications, I had to send a copy to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to trigger biometrics appointments for their criminal and security background checks. Some judges have ordered people removed for not having the biometrics done even though there isn't anything they can do except request an appointment. Without a competent attorney working with you, it is impossible to make your way through all these pitfalls; errors at any of these stages could have resulted in them losing their asylum case—a devastating consequence and really a matter of life or death.

Prior to the hearing, I tried to contact the Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorney in their case to narrow down the legal issues. But the ICE attorney never responded, which is unfortunately common. In fact, ICE has recently instructed their attorneys that they don't even need to appear in court. In any other court, if the trial attorney didn't show up, the case would be dismissed. But not in immigration court.

Ultimately these siblings won their case because at the time, fear of persecution on account of kinship and domestic abuse was recognized as a valid basis for asylum. But several years after they won, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions changed asylum law using his unusual power to override immigration court decisions and tried to block kinship and abuse cases as bases for gaining asylum.

The simple truth is that immigration courts are not real courts. The Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, is an arm of the Department of Justice headed by a political appointee, the attorney general. The attorney general has total authority over EOIR—including the power to hire the judges and re-adjudicate any case they decide. In an appeal, the attorney general represents the government in seeking to deport the person instead of remaining the neutral decision-maker. Given their very structure, the courts are not fair.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link.

Notably, the notice issue, such as the lack of a hearing date, time, and place, as required by statute, has reached the Supremes for the third time. A better BIA would have followed the statute and held DHS accountable right off the bat.

Instead, Garland continues to waste the time of the Supremes mindlessly defending the BIA's decision to "paper over" what at best are "worst practices," and in the view of the Round Table and other experts, a blatant violation of the statute! See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/10/31/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%97%bd%f0%9f%91%a9%f0%9f%8f%bd%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%91%a8%f0%9f%8f%bb%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f-round-table-gibson-dunn-pro-bono-provide-supremes-with-expert-inpu/.

This is just one of many problems that, in the absence of long-overdue Congressional action to establish an independent Article I Court, as urged by Jeremy and other experts, Garland has failed to address with administrative reforms and needed personnel changes within his sole authority!