Page 34 - The Indian EYE 060322

IMMIGRATION JUNE 03, 2022 | The Indian Eye 34

The Pathos of Patel v. Garland

BY STACY CAPLOW the courts’ dockets from re- izenship. His mistake related migration Court where every er reach even Immigration
visiting a “matter of grace” to a Georgia driver’s license judge has a denial rate over Court let alone the Circuits.
There are many reasons
for despair over the Supreme shields incorrect, biased, ig- not any immigration bene- 90% in asylum cases. While These agency determinations
fits. Apparently, he may even
norant, illogical, and indefen-
his application for relief was rarely are explained or justi-
Court’s technocratic decision sible fact-finding by low-level have been entitled to a license Adjustment of Status, this as- fied. Bureaucrats—not judg-
in Patel v. Garland which or quasi-judicial officials. without being a citizen. More tonishingly miserly grant rate es—make life changing deci-
strikingly depends on argu- As Justice Gorsuch importantly, when his misrep- reveals how immigrant-un- sions invisibly, anonymously,
ments advanced by an amic- laments in his surprisingly resentation was discovered, friendly the judge who decid- and unaccountably.
us rather than the Govern- critical and forceful dissent, Georgia declined to prose- ed that Mr. Patel was untruth- This case has a sad end-
ment. The decision effectively life-altering consequences cute him, crediting his claim ful must have been. ing for Mr. Patel personally.
forecloses judicial review of ensue based on the assess- of mistake. That was the end From one of the most Maybe one of the nameless
fact-finding by immigration ment of a single Immigration of the road for his good luck. immigrant-hostile immigra- agency decision makers will
courts or agencies regardless Judge, or worse immigration Anyone familiar with tion courts, Patel’s case even- be compassionate enough to
of whether the fact-finding functionaries in local offic- the bureaucracy of the immi- tually landed in the Eleventh exercise their unlimited dis-
was unreasonable and pro- es—in this case the deporta- gration system must cringe Circuit, whose pro immigrant cretion now and defer depor-
duced an incorrect legal con- tion of a person whose ties to at Mr. Patel’s misfortune at rulings are below average for tation. He may not gain law-
clusion. In 1996, Congress the U.S. were substantial and every stage thereafter. The all circuits. ful status, but he can remain
did insulate certain specific longstanding. He describes Georgia decision apparently The final cringe is ideo- in the U.S. with his family and
discretionary decisions, which this an “assertion of raw ad- was unpersuasive to immigra- logical: Despite the Govern- his community.
already have an almost im- ministrative power.” tion authorities who denied ment’s basic agreement with Patel shuts the door
possible standard of review Mr. Patel made a mis- lawful permanent residence, Patel’s legal theory that the firmly and unequivocally,
in most contexts and, by their take—checked a wrong box and several years later, placed law permits judicial review in preventing independent re-
nature are highly subjective, which happens to be the Mr. Patel into removal pro- cases like his, the Court invit- view of fact-finding by Im-
from judicial review. But, in worst wrong box possible: ceedings. ed an amicus defense of the migration Judges, however
Patel, the effort to protect
misrepresentation of U.S. cit- This is the first cringe: Eleventh Circuit’s decision, irrational and indefensible
Why did USCIS seek enlisting a former law clerk of once the Board of Immigra-
his removal? Both the Justice Thomas. Then, ear- tion Appeals has affirmed.
agency and then the ICE ly in its opinion the majority This makes the need to pop-
lawyers in Immigration states “Amicus’ interpretation ulate the Immigration Court
Court had could have is the only one that fits [the bench with independent,
exercised discretion by statute’s] text and context.” highly qualified, experienced,
declining to prosecute. The outcome, however labo- non-political unbiased indi-
His basis for removal was riously reasoned, was a fore- viduals with appropriate tem-
unlawful presence mak- gone conclusion. perament even more urgent.
ing him a low priority for While Patel was found Perhaps this case will pro-
deportation. The equi- incredible by an Immigration vide new impetus for reform
ties of his situation were Judge, the ramifications of such as Real Courts, Rule of
in his favor. this decision extend far be- Law Act of 2022 voted by the
The next cringe is yond the 3,000 or so Adjust- House Judiciary Committee
geographical: While ment of Status and the close in May just days before the
none of the reported to 3,000 Cancellation of Re- Supreme Court’s decision.
decisions specify the ju- moval or related relief matters Guest author Professor Stacy
risdiction of his removal heard in Immigration Courts Caplow teaches immigration
proceedings or name yearly, a small percentage of law at Brooklyn Law School
the judge, as a Georgia the overall caseload. Every where she has co-directed the
resident he likely was day, multiple thousands of Safe Harbor Project s
venued in Atlanta Im- cases decided by USCIS nev-
m of ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
CYRUS D. MEHTA & PARTNERS PLLC Cyrus D. Mehta, a graduate of Cambridge University and Columbia Law School, is the Managing Partner of Cyrus D.
Mehta & Partners PLLC in New York City. Mr. Mehta is a member of AILA’s Administrative Litigation Task Force; AILA’s
EB-5 Committee; former chair of AILA’s Ethics Committee; special counsel on immigration matters to the Departmental

Disciplinary Committee, Appellate Division, First Department, New York; member of the ABA Commission on Immigra-
tion; board member of Volunteers for Legal Services and board member of New York Immigration Coalition. Mr. Mehta

  is the former chair of the Board of Trustees of the American Immigration Council and former chair of the Committee on
   
­ Immigration and Nationality Law of the New York City Bar Association. He is a frequent speaker and writer on various
€
‚  
immigration-related issues, including on ethics, and is also an adjunct professor of law at Brooklyn Law School, where he
teaches a course entitled Immigration and Work. Mr. Mehta received the AILA 2018 Edith Lowenstein Memorial Award
for advancing the practice of immigration law and the AILA 2011 Michael Maggio Memorial Award for his outstanding
efforts in providing pro bono representation in the immigration field. He has also received two AILA Presidential Com-
mendations in 2010 and 2016. Mr. Mehta is ranked among the most highly regarded lawyers in North America by Who’s
2 6th Floor Who Legal – Corporate Immigration Law 2019 and is also ranked in Chambers USA and Chambers Global 2019 in

   
immigration law, among other rankings.

www.TheIndianEYE.com