Page 17 - Ohio Vol 4 No 7

ALEKSANDAR CUIC | Immigration
Attorney General Sessions’ Impact on the U.S. Immigration Courts
Aspart of the Trump Ad- ministration’s focus upon our Nation’s Immigration system we have seen workplace raids conducted by Immigration and Cus- toms Enforcement, the Presidential Travel Ban and proposed rules a ect- ing Permanent Residency for those that have sought or are likely to seek public bene ts; just to name a few. However, while not as publicized as those actions, the current Admin- istration, by and through Attorney General Je Sessions, have also con- ducted a renewed focus on our Na- tions Immigration Courts through
various means.
With a current nationwide back-
log of an estimated 730,000 pending cases, AG Sessions has taken it upon himself to change the Immigration Court system. On March 7, 2018, un- der the authority vested to him pur- suant to 8 CFR §1003.1(h)(1)(i), he directed the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to refer for his review a case arising from the Charlotte Im- migration Court. e case involved a victim of Domestic Violence from El Salvador who sought Asylum due to her “particular social group.” Case precedent, speci cally Matter of A- R-C-G- et al 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), provided protection for those seeking refuge based on Domestic Violence in their home countries. Here, the Immigration Judge denied her request for Asylum and Respon- dent appealed. e BIA, citing to Mat- ter of A-R-C-G-, sustained the appeal, granted her request for Asylum and remanded the case back to the Immi- gration Judge to comply with required background checks as required under 8 CFR §1003.1(d)(6).
However, upon remand, and a er security checks were cleared, the Im- migration Judge ... did not render a
decision. Instead, he certi ed the case back to the BIA for, what he perceived, was intervening case law arising from the Fourth Circuit. Once jurisdiction returned to the BIA, Attorney Gen- eral Sessions began his review.
On June 11, 2018, Attorney General Sessions issued his decision in Mat- ter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018). In Matter of A-B-, the Attorney General, not only streamlined what “membership in a particular social group” should now be, he speci cally targeted the holding in Matter of A- R-C-G-. Explicitly, he stated that A-R- C-G- “was wrongly decided,” “should not have been issued” and that the decision was issued “contrary to the appropriate way that the Board has in the past, and must in the future, approach such asylum claims.” As a result, in the opening section of his decision, stated “I overrule that case and any other Board precedent to the extent those other decisions are in- consistent with the legal conclusions set forth in this opinion.” E ectively, Attorney General Sessions stripped away precedent case law without any check to his authority.
Matter of A-B- was not his only fundamental change. Before Matter of A-B-, he issued Matter of Castro-Tum 27 I&N Dec. 271, 294 (A.G. 2018) stripping Immigration Judges’ au- thority to administratively close pro- ceedings for various reasons; a tool o en used by Immigration Judges to remove active cases from their dock- ets or temporarily pause proceedings o en times to allow the Respondent to seek collateral relief or for purposes of judicial economy. en, he imple- mented a quota program for Immi- gration Judges where to get a “satis- factory” rating on their performance evaluations, Judges will be required to clear at least 700 cases a year and
AttorneyAtLawMagazine.com
to have fewer than 15 percent of their decisions overturned on appeal. is move has created a fear that judges will speed through cases and un- dermine Respondent’s constitution- ally guaranteed right to due process. en, as recently as September 12th of this year, Attorney General Ses- sions, speaking before 44 new Immi- gration Judges, blamed Immigration Attorneys for part of the Nation’s Im- migration backlog. According to AG Sessions “good lawyers using all their talents and skills work every day ... like water seeping through an earthen dam to get around the plain words of (immigration law) to advance their clients’ interests.”
So, where does the problem lie? Unlike Judges in the Judicial Branch, who are given authority and indepen- dence under Article III of the Con- stitution, Immigration Judges, whom are Administrative Law Judges under the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, work within the Department of Justice which is led by Attorney Gen- eral Sessions. Put in other words, they work under, and for, AG Sessions. In response these changes, the Immigra- tion Judge’s Union has begun to ght back by ling grievances and calling for independence again. According to the president of the National Associa- tion of Immigration Judges the Hon- orable Ashley Tabaddor “the only du- rable solution is to get the court away from the Justice Department. Let it be a real court. Let it be real judges, so that we can do what we’re supposed to do.” e question remains, will such a change actually
happen or instead will change con- tinue to happen around our Na- tion’s Immigra- tion Judges?
Attorney and partner Aleksandar Cuic received his Juris Doctorate from the Cleveland Marshall School of Law. He also received his MBA from the Cleveland State University College of Business. He is a graduate of Bowling Green State University. Prior to his arrival at Robert Brown LLC, Aleksandar was a solo practitioner, working in the eld of general litigation and legal ethics. Aleksandar oversees the rm’s litigation practice, focusing largely on removal and deportation defense matters and general litigation appearing in Immigration Courts across the United States. He is also well-versed in the rm’s family-based immigration practice.
17