iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

7/24 Vayo writes in Zarco decision that McHenry is away on detail. 8/24 I published the FOIA docs 9/11 DOJ adds his bio back to the OCAHO page but removes most of the information. 9/29 his name is listed on a published OCAHO decision. 10/1 he's listed as the Acting PADAG in judiciary publication

020

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

I have filed another FOIA to see if we can find out. That October 1 federal judiciary publication actually makes me more skeptical that McHenry has actually returned to the CAHO position. What we do know:

110

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

So I'm just guessing here, but given the apparent removal of all public-facing documents that mention Elizabeth Vayo at OCAHO, my current working theory is that McHenry remains Acting PADAG at Main Justice while simultaneously resuming at least some CAHO functions? Or at least on paper?

210

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

But here's where it gets weirder. As of 10/1, the federal judiciary STILL lists him as Acting PADAG. The brand-new Advisory Committee roster, effective October 1, 2026, still says: James McHenry, Esq. Acting Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General (ex officio). www.uscourts.gov/sites/defaul...

uscourts.gov

100

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

He's also listed in this July 2026 "US Corts Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules" roster as "Acting Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General (ex officio)." www.uscourts.gov/sites/defaul...

100

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

And in this November 2025 OIG document, he's listed as both that Acting position and also "Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General," who at the time was Todd Blanche. So he was wearing two hats - Todd Blanche's Senior Counsel and the APADAAG. www.oversight.gov/sites/defaul...

oversight.gov

100

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

So I figured out where McHenry was for the 18 months he was MIA from OCAHO. His title is listed in this March 25, 2026 Annual Awards Ceremony press release as the “Acting Principal Associate Deputy Associate Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General.” www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attor...

justice.gov

Attorney General Pamela Bondi Announces Award Recipients at the U.S. Department of Justice 73rd Annual Awards Ceremony

130

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

So, no announcement, but it does seem that McHenry is back at OCAHO? Is no longer on detail? It seems like this would be important stuff to be really clear about given that the statute requires certain duties to be performed by the CAHO and not the person tapped to perform their duties while away.

010

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

A third odd thing - the new James McHenry bio is weirdly short in comparison to what was there until 9/11 (which said he was afk, serving on detail. Compare the Wayback Machine screenshot as of July to now.

100

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

The FOIA results I received in August didn't say Carol Bell had been appointed in June. They still listed the position as vacant in August. So, either they're just really slow at updating their org chart and their website, or idk. Something else.

110

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

Another oddity. As of 9/7, there was no Chief Administrative Law Judge - it was listed as vacant. Here's the wayback machine screenshot for that day. But after I posted those FOIA Docs, they updated the page to say Carol Bell had been appointed as CALJ back in June. www.justice.gov/eoir/meet-ad...

110

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

That new OCAHO decision with the line for signature for James McHenry and the new Bio posted 9/11/26 are the only available documents currently on their website reflecting who might be in charge.

100

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

This little sub-agency has always been shrouded in mystery. But as of July (as noted in the footnote in the Zarco Industries decision), McHenry was gone and Vayo was performing the duties of CAHO (unlawfully, in my opinion). I shared the FOIA results in the thread above, which were truly weird.

110

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

Then, on 9/29, OCAHO published a decision with a signature line for McHenry. I guess that means he's back? What does that mean for Acting CAHO Elizabeth Vayo? I'm not finding her BIO on the EOIR website any longer. www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1...

120

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

Weird. On 8/24 I posted FOIA records reflecting that there's currently no Chief Administrative Hearing Officer at OCAHO, and that the statute requires there to be a CAHO for the agency to have jurisdiction. Days later, EOIR posted James McHenry's bio again as CAHO. www.justice.gov/eoir/staff-p...

justice.gov

Chief Administrative Hearing Officer

294

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

It's a combination of things. Yes they've slowed down processing. But they've also scared a lot of people into not applying, worried they'll get in trouble somehow or if they say the wrong thing they'll get deported. Everyone is afraid to file anything, even if they're eligible. Which is the point.

0180

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

The court is considering whether Bain exhausted the administrative remedies required to pursue her termination claims despite the DOJ's arguments elsewhere that she couldn't pursue MSPB review. Her 9/29 filing describes the email but does not attach it.

020

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

Her appeal was repeatedly dismissed subject to automatic reinstatement. Bain says DOJ now argues she failed to exhaust that administrative process. That is the procedural bind: DOJ challenged the forum’s authority, then faulted her for not completing review there.

120

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

Bain’s challenge also ran into the Merit Systems Protection Board’s lack of a quorum, which is largely why it's still pending in District Court. According to her filing, DOJ argued that without a quorum, the MSPB could not constitutionally appoint the administrative judge hearing her appeal.

120

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

We don't have the email yet. But she says the email surfaced in June 2026, nearly six years after her firing. The stakes extend beyond Bain: immigration judges decide cases involving deportation and asylum. How DOJ investigates and disciplines them is a matter of public accountability.

130

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

In the new filing, Bain alleges an early-2019 email shows the DOJ official who prepared her removal decision advised the OPR investigators to write only about evidence they relied on in the removal decision so that they could avoid disclosing the full investigative record to her.

130

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

Former immigration judge Quynh Vu Bain is still challenging her 2020 firing by DOJ. The lawsuit raises an important question (that could affect the more recent IJ termination suits that are pending): Do IJ's have the right to contest the evidence used to remove them?

140

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

The case isn't just about her firing; it's also a FOIA lawsuiit over refusal to turn over the investigative record as she tried to defend herself. She claims that just this year, they turned over many thousands of new documents, including the email she's describing here:

140

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

There is an IJ termination lawsuit that's been pending in D.DC since June '21 about the firing of Judge Quynh Bain. A document she filed today contains a new allegation about the agency conspiring to hide evidence from her surrounding her firing. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

storage.courtlistener.com

Response to Order to Show Cause 09 29 2026 – #147, Att. #2 in BAIN v. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (D.D.C., 1:21-cv-01751) – CourtListener.com

Response to Order to Show Cause 09 29 2026

1294

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

So the question raised by this new policy is pretty basic: Can EOIR call a hearing “open to the public” when its rules leave the public with no practical way to attend it? Not legally, no. But it seems they're gonna try.

051

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

The new fact sheet seems to recognize the problem without answering it. It says detention facilities have their own access rules and tells visitors to check with them. Not a solution. It still says observation is allowed only when “no physical courtroom is available.”

111

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

Now apply the new rule. If an IJ is physically sitting in a courtroom inside a detention facility or prison, and the facility will not admit a member of the public or press, the hearing is not legally closed. But visitors “will not be admitted” by WebEx bc someone is physically in a courtroom.

132

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

EOIR’s own Policy Manual says visitors to detention/correctional facilities may need advance clearance and comply with security restrictions. The upshot: an immigration hearing can legally be “open” while the physical facility is not freely open to the public. www.justice.gov/eoir/policy-...

justice.gov

3.13 - Access to Court

110

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

The detention setting makes the problem even clearer. EOIR conducts immigration hearings inside DHS detention centers and federal, state, and local correctional facilities. And EOIR admits that access to those facilities is controlled by somebody else. The public can't get in even if they want to

110

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

Then where exactly is the public supposed to go? EOIR lists the Falls Church IAC as an immigration court at its headquarters. But unlike other court pages, it has no ordinary visitor/courtroom-access instructions. www.justice.gov/eoir/falls-c...

justice.gov

Falls Church Immigration Adjudication Center

120

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

EOIR even publishes Webex links for the judges at these adjudication centers. So let's say IJ is physically sitting at the Falls Church IAC and everyone else is remote. Under the new policy, the public can't use Webex bc the judge is in a “physical courtroom”? www.justice.gov/eoir/find-im...

justice.gov

Find an Immigration Court and Access Internet-Based Hearings

110

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

An adjudication center is an immigration court that only has judges and "courtrooms" (which are just these little offices) for the purpose of these judges appearing in whatever city they're needed. There isn't a way to attend these hearings in person.

120

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

This new policy makes zero sense. Consider EOIR’s Immigration Adjudication Centers. EOIR currently has three: Falls Church and Richmond, Virginia, and Fort Worth, Texas. These are "court rooms" where only the judge appears. No public access. So, no WebEx visitors? www.justice.gov/eoir/office-...

justice.gov

Office of the Chief Immigration Judge

130

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

EOIR’s own current Policy Manual also says hearings are generally open and discusses closure and limits on the number of attendees. I don’t see anything there establishing this new physical-presence rule either. www.justice.gov/eoir/policy-...

justice.gov

3.8 - Public Access

110

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

What’s strange to me is the legal basis for the new Webex restriction. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.27 says hearings are open to the public and allows reasonable attendance limits depending on “physical facilities.” It doesn’t say public access must be in-person whenever any person is in a courtroom.

140

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

There’s more. Online observers may not speak, use the raise-hand function, or use chat unless the IJ invites them. They can be removed at thet discretion of the judge for violating EOIR policy. And observers must enter before the hearing starts and wait until recess or the end before leaving.

130

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

EOIR also added two full pages of rules governing the hearings the public is allowed to watch online. Among them: • maximum 20 observers • everyone must use their full legal name • everyone must log in separately • no pseudonyms or device names • camera off • microphone muted.

140

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

EOIR now says the public may observe by Webex only when “there is no physical courtroom available.” That leads to odd results. If the hearing is "remote" by anyone involved is sitting in a courtroom, the public or press apparently has to go to that courtroom to observe the hearing. No WebEx.

140

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

The new version is much more categorical. If the IJ, respondent, OR counsel appears in a physical courtroom, “visitors MUST observe in person.” So even if it's listed as a "WebEx" hearing, “Webex visitors will not be admitted in such cases.” That “must” language was not in the 2025 policy.

160

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

Last year, EOIR said visitors “should observe in person” and that Webex links posted online were “for parties appearing remotely.” Trying to find a remaining link. They seem to have taken that policy off of their website. I have a downloaded PDF of it, but I'll post the link later in this thread

160

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

EOIR quietly issued a new 5-page policy on public observation of immigration court hearings this week. It contains some significant new limitations, most notably for people trying to observe hearings remotely on WebEx. Here are the changes I've noticed. www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1...

justice.gov

Fact Sheet September 2026 | United States Department of Justice

14729

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 25/09/2026

This is what they do when you give them endless money. $20.5M in fees and costs for buying 7 warehouses they're now going to sell. $10M for unused Guantánamo tents, and unneded food. ICE bought 11 warehouses for $1.07B without any plan. Taxpayer money, burned. www.cbsnews.com/news/ice-spe...

cbsnews.com

ICE wasted millions of taxpayer dollars in rapid push to expand detention capacity, government watchdog finds

With an unprecedented budget, ICE spent billions in a rush to expand its detention network, wasting millions in the process, the Government Accountability Office found.

276

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 16/09/2026

Was hoping to read this Amnesty report about Free Speech in Saudi Arabia, but the link directs you to google.com. A little passive aggressive, but yes I can google it I guess.

141

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 16/09/2026

I've basically stopped doing Pro Hac Vice cases. That's where you agree to be local counsel for an attorney not admitted locally. They want to file a habeas, but they need a local attorney to sponsor them. Because I kept receiving petitions that contains hallucinations. Like multiple.

161

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 16/09/2026

The BIA ultimately imposed the same six-month suspension: Sethi cannot practice before the Immigration Courts, BIA, or DHS for six months, effective June 13, 2026.

130

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 16/09/2026

Lawyers cannot cite nonexistent cases, fabricate quotations, misrepresent what real cases say, make false statements of law, or fail to correct false statements. As the BIA says in the Sethi case: “Any or all of these actions can be taken with or without regard to the use of AI.”

161

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 16/09/2026

Sethi also argued that reciprocal discipline involving generative AI was unprecedented. The BIA’s answer is probably the most important part of today’s decision: AI doesn’t really change the ethical rule. Any of these things can be grounds for discipline whether someone uses AI or not.

121

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 16/09/2026

This decision isn't surprising. Once another federal court disciplines you, EOIR’s proceeding is not a do-over. The prior discipline = a rebuttable presumption of professional misconduct. The BIA treated Sethi’s attack on the Ninth Circuit’s findings largely as an impermissible collateral attack.

111

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 16/09/2026

He also admitted that he wasn't reading his own briefs. He had third parties writing his briefs, so he had no way to know if they were using AI or not. That was his defense. And he said the same at the BIA: no proof that he knew a brief writer had used AI. The BIA wasn't persuaded.

142

Matthew Hoppock @hoppock.bsky.social · 16/09/2026

But after the errors were discovered... Sethi initially characterized the nonexistent citation as a “typographical error.” He also continued to maintain that other errors were innocent typographical mistakes even after the court became concerned about AI use.

152