Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:18 pm
Time: 9:18 pm
Results for immigration courts
8 results foundAuthor: Metcalf, Mark H. Title: Built to Fail: Deception and Disorder in America’s Immigration Courts Summary: American immigration courts are the heart of a system that nurtures scandal. Their work touches nearly every aspect of America’s immigration system. These courts are essential to recruit the bright and talented to American shores, to alleviate persecution, and to secure this nation’s borders and neighborhoods. But they cannot perform their critical work. Deception and disorder rule. These courts have become — in the words of frustrated judges — “play courts.” In reality, they are courts that are built to fail. Details: Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Backgrounder: Accessed July 26, 2011 at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2011/built-to-fail.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.cis.org/articles/2011/built-to-fail.pdf Shelf Number: 122168 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigration (U.S.)Immigration Courts |
Author: National Lawyers Guild. Immigration Court Observation Project Title: Fundamental Fairness: A Report on the Due Process Crisis in New York City Immigration Courts Summary: This report is a summary of 414 immigration hearings observed by New York City law students in New York City’s Immigration Courts from October 2009 through November 2010. Although numerous sources have documented inadequacies of the United States’ immigration laws and Immigration Court system, this report provides a unique perspective on the difficulties experienced by the individuals and communities affected by the Immigration Court system in New York City. It concludes with recommendations to ameliorate the identified problems. Chapter I shows the diversity of the immigrant population in New York City and the human impact that deportations have on immigrant families and immigrant communities. Many immigrants observed in removal proceedings have lived in the United States for decades, and were placed in proceedings notwithstanding their deep roots in, and familial connections to, this country. Chapter II turns to three elements of the due process crisis faced by immigrants in removal proceedings: (A) detention, (B) problematic courtroom procedures, and (C) inadequate access to representation and, when represented, to competent counsel. Each issue is addressed with anecdotes demonstrating the harsh reality faced by immigrants in New York City’s Immigration Courts. Harrowing stories of detained immigrants lacking adequate medical care and incompetent attorneys prolonging immigrants’ detention or improperly expediting immigrants’ removal, show the deep-seated faults in the system. Chapter III outlines an emerging and pressing issue in Immigration Court: the lack of protection provided to individuals with mental disabilities. ICOP chose to highlight its observations of proceedings involving individuals with mental disabilities because they demonstrate the urgent need for additional procedural and substantive safeguards for all immigrants in removal proceedings. The substance of the report concludes with proposed recommendations that address the due process issues documented through ICOP’s observations. These include: A. Reforming the detention system by ensuring meaningful review of liberty deprivation, and minimizing the impact of detention on a respondent’s immigration case. B. Addressing lapses in courtroom procedural fairness by ensuring language access and promoting transparency and professionalism in the courtroom. C. Firmly establishing a respondent’s right to counsel, and promoting and enforcing adequate representation. Finally, the appendix of the report includes direction on how to implement an observation project in your city and a glossary of pertinent terms. Details: New York: National Lawyers Guild, Immigration Court Observation Project, 2011. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2011 at: http://nycicop.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/icop-report-5-10-2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://nycicop.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/icop-report-5-10-2011.pdf Shelf Number: 122896 Keywords: Due ProcessIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration (U.S.)Immigration Courts |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation and Inspections Division Title: Management of Immigration Cases and Appeals by the Executive Office for Immigration Review Summary: The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted a review to examine the Department of Justice’s (Department) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) processing and management of immigration cases and appeals involving foreign-born individuals (aliens) charged with violating immigration laws. Among other duties, EOIR courts are responsible for determining whether aliens charged by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with immigration violations should be ordered removed from the United States or be granted relief from removal, which would allow them to remain in this country. The OIG found that immigration court performance reports are incomplete and overstate the actual accomplishments of these courts. These flaws in EOIR’s performance reporting preclude the Department from accurately assessing the courts’ progress in processing immigration cases or identifying needed improvements. For example, administrative events such as changes of venue and transfers are reported as completions even though the immigration courts have made no decisions on whether to remove aliens from the United States. As a result, a case may be “completed” multiple times. In our sample of 1,785 closed cases, 484 administrative events were counted as completions by EOIR. Reporting these administrative actions as completions overstates the accomplishments of the immigration courts. Similarly, those same administrative events result in a case being reported as a “receipt” when the case is opened at the receiving court. As a result, the same case may be reported as a “receipt” multiple times, thereby overstating the total number of cases opened by the immigration courts during a particular period. Further, for those cases where EOIR has put in place a timeliness goal for handling a case, EOIR does not report the total time it takes to complete the case. Instead, EOIR tracks case processing time by court. As a result, a case with a timeliness goal of 60 days that spent 50 days at one court and was then transferred to another court, where it spent another 50 days, would be reported by EOIR as two cases that were each completed within the 60-day timeliness goal. In actuality, there was only one case, and that case took EOIR 100 days to reach a decision on whether the alien should be removed, thereby exceeding the 60-day goal. This practice makes it appear that more cases meet the completion goals than actually do. Additionally, in January 2010, EOIR abandoned completion goals for cases involving non-detained aliens who do not file asylum applications, which make up about 46 percent of the courts’ completions. EOIR made this decision to prioritize and focus on the completion of detained cases, in which aliens are deprived of their liberty and housed at taxpayer expense. While the OIG recognizes the importance of the timely completion of cases involving detained aliens, EOIR also should have goals for the timely processing of non-detained cases. Despite overstating case receipts and completions, EOIR’s immigration court data still showed that it was not able to process the volume of work. From FY 2006 through FY 2010, the overall efficiency of the courts did not improve even though there was an increase in the number of judges. In 4 of those 5 years, the number of proceedings received was greater than the number of proceedings completed. As a result, the number of pending cases increased. Our analysis of a sample of closed cases showed that cases involving non-detained aliens and those with applications for relief from removal can take long periods to complete. This results in crowded court calendars and delayed processing of new cases. For example, cases for non-detained aliens took on average 17½ months to adjudicate, with some cases taking more than 5 years to complete. In addition to the volume of new cases, the number and length of continuances immigration judges granted was a significant contributing factor to case processing times. In the 1,785 closed cases we examined, 953 cases (53 percent) had one or more continuances. Each of these cases averaged four continuances. The average amount of time granted for each continuance was 92 days (about 3 months), which results in an average of 368 days for continuances per case. In contrast, the EOIR’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) completed more appeals of immigration court decisions than it received from FY 2006 through FY 2010. Appeals involving non-detained aliens, however, still took long periods to complete. In our sample, the BIA averaged more than 16 months to render decisions on cases involving non-detained aliens, as compared to 3½ months for cases involving detained aliens. However, EOIR’s performance reporting does not reflect the actual length of time to review and decide those appeals because EOIR does not count processing time for one- and three-member reviews from the date the appeal was filed. Rather, EOIR begins the counting process once certain work is completed by the BIA and/or its staff. As a result, EOIR’s performance reporting data underreports actual processing time, which undermines EOIR’s ability to identify appeal processing problems and take corrective actions. In this report, we make nine recommendations to help EOIR improve its case processing and provide accurate and complete information on case completions. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation and Inspections Division, 2012. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed Dec. 1, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2012/e1301.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2012/e1301.pdf Shelf Number: 127090 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration (U.S.)Immigration Courts |
Author: Holper, Mary Title: Confronting Cops in Immigration Court Summary: Immigration judges routinely use police reports to make life-altering decisions in noncitizens' lives. The word of the police officer prevents a detainee from being released on bond, leads to negative discretionary decisions in relief from removal, and can prove that a past crime fits within a ground of removability. Yet the police officers who write these reports rarely step foot in immigration court; immigration judges rely on the hearsay document to make such critical decisions. This practice is especially troubling when the same police reports cannot be used against the noncitizen in a criminal case without the officer testifying, due to both the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and Federal Rules of Evidence, neither of which apply in immigration court. In these days of the increasing criminalization of immigration law and prioritization of deporting so-called "criminal aliens," the police report problem is salient, and impacts thousands of noncitizens every year. This article argues for a right to confront police officers in immigration court by examining three different ways to conceptualize removal proceedings: (1) in light of the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, deportation should be considered punishment, thus guaranteeing all of the protections of a criminal trial, including the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause; (2) under the Mathews v. Eldridge case-by-case balancing test of the due process clause, courts should balance the interests at stake and adopt a right to confrontation and cross-examination of police officers in immigration court; and (3) if deportation is conceptualized as "quasi-criminal" and thus deserving of some, but not all, of the protections guaranteed at a criminal trial, one of those protections should be the right to confront one's accuser, especially when the accuser is a police officer. The scholarship has focused on why other rights guaranteed in a criminal trial - court-appointed counsel, freedom from ex post facto laws, freedom from double jeopardy, proportionality principles, and the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule - should apply to removal proceedings. An overlooked criminal protection is the right to confront one's accuser in immigration court. Details: Boston: Boston College - Law School, 2014. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Boston College Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 333 : Accessed September 11, 2014 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2485328 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2485328 Shelf Number: 133286 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration Courts |
Author: Eagly, Ingrid Title: Access to Counsel in Immigration Court Summary: It has long been the case that immigrants have a right to counsel in immigration court, but that expense has generally been borne by the non-citizen. Because deportation is classified as a civil rather than a criminal sanction, immigrants facing removal are not afforded the constitutional protections under the Sixth Amendment that are provided to criminal defendants. Whereas in the criminal justice system, all defendants facing even one day in jail are provided an attorney if they cannot afford one, immigrants facing deportation generally do not have that opportunity. Detained immigrants, particularly those held in remote locations, face the additional obstacle of accessing counsel from behind bars. Yet, in every immigration case, the government is represented by a trained attorney who can argue for deportation, regardless of whether the immigrant is represented. The lack of appointed counsel may have a profound impact on immigrants' ability to receive a fair hearing. Past research has highlighted the importance of counsel for asylum seekers, and regional studies have highlighted the important role attorneys play for immigrants navigating immigration courts in New York and San Francisco. Yet, up to now, the debate about access to counsel has proceeded with little reliable national information on how many immigrants facing deportation obtain attorneys, the barriers to accessing representation, and how such representation impacts the outcomes of their cases. This report presents the results of the first national study of access to counsel in U.S. immigration courts. Drawing on data from over 1.2 million deportation cases decided between 2007 and 2012, the report provides much-needed information about the scope and impact of attorney representation in U.S. immigration courts. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2016 at: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/access_to_counsel_in_immigration_court.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/access_to_counsel_in_immigration_court.pdf Shelf Number: 140826 Keywords: DeportationImmigrant DetentionImmigration CourtsImmigration EnforcementRight to CounselUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Asylum: Variation Exists in Outcomes of Applications Across Immigration Courts and Judges Summary: GAO analyzed the outcomes of 595,795 asylum applications completed by the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) between fiscal years 1995 and 2014, and identified outcome variation both over time and across immigration courts and judges. From fiscal years 2008 through 2014, annual grant rates for affirmative asylum applications (those filed with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at the initiative of the individual and referred to an EOIR immigration judge) ranged from 21 to 44 percent. In the same period, grant rates for defensive asylum applications (those initiated before an immigration judge) ranged from 15 to 26 percent. Further, EOIR data indicate that asylum grant rates varied by immigration court. For example, from May 2007 through fiscal year 2014, the grant rate was 66 percent (affirmative) and 52 percent (defensive) in the New York, New York, immigration court and less than 5 percent (affirmative and defensive) in the Omaha, Nebraska, and Atlanta, Georgia, immigration courts. GAO found that certain case and judge-related factors are associated with variation in the outcomes of asylum applications. For example, applicants who were represented by legal counsel were granted asylum at a rate 3.1 (affirmative) and 1.8 (defensive) times higher than applicants who were not represented. After statistically controlling for certain factors, such as judge experience and whether or not the applicant had dependents, GAO found variation remained in the outcomes of completed asylum applications across immigration courts and judges. For example, from May 2007 through fiscal year 2014, GAO estimated that the affirmative and defensive asylum grant rates would vary by 29 and 38 percentage points, respectively, for a representative applicant with the same average characteristics we measured, whose case was heard in different immigration courts. In addition, GAO estimated that the affirmative and defensive asylum grant rates would vary by 47 and 57 percentage points, respectively, for the same representative applicant whose case was heard by different immigration judges. GAO could not control for the underlying facts and merits of individual asylum applications because EOIR's case management system was designed to track and manage workloads and does not collect data on all of the details of individual proceedings. Nonetheless, the data available allowed GAO to hold constant certain factors of each asylum application, enabling GAO to compare outcomes across immigration courts and judges. EOIR provides legal resources to targeted populations, including asylum applicants, through the Legal Orientation Program (LOP) and Legal Orientation Program for Custodians of Unaccompanied Alien Children (LOPC). EOIR and its contractor use LOP and LOPC site visits, monthly conference calls, and quarterly reports to monitor these programs. However, EOIR has not established performance measures, consistent with principles outlined in the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, to determine whether these programs are having a measurable impact in meeting program objectives. Developing and implementing performance measures, including establishing a baseline, to determine whether LOP and LOPC are having a measurable impact would better position EOIR to make any adjustments necessary to improve the programs' performance. Why GAO Did This Study Tens of thousands of foreign nationals in the United States apply annually for asylum, which provides refuge to those who have been persecuted or fear persecution on protected grounds. EOIR's immigration judges decide asylum application outcomes in court proceedings. In 2008, GAO reported that EOIR data from October 1994 through April 2007 showed significant variation in the outcomes across immigration courts and judges (grants versus denials) of such applications. The Senate Appropriations Committee report for DHS Appropriations Act, 2015, included a provision for GAO to update its 2008 report. This report examines (1) variation in asylum applications outcomes over time and across courts and judges; (2) factors associated with variability; and (3) EOIR's actions to facilitate asylum applicants' access to legal resources. GAO analyzed EOIR data—using multivariate statistics—on asylum outcomes from fiscal years 1995 through 2014, the most current data available at the time of GAO's analysis; reviewed EOIR policies and procedures; and interviewed EOIR officials and immigration judges about court proceedings and legal access programs. GAO observed asylum hearings in 10 immigration courts selected on the basis of application data and other factors. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that EOIR develop and implement a system of performance measures, including establishing a baseline, to regularly evaluate the effectiveness of LOP and LOPC. EOIR concurred with GAO's recommendation Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2016. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-17-72: Accessed December 14, 2016 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/680976.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/680976.pdf Shelf Number: 140464 Keywords: Asylum SeekersImmigrantsImmigration CourtsImmigration Enforcement |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Immigration Courts: Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and Address Long-Standing Management and Operational Challenges Summary: The Department of Justice's EOIR is responsible for conducting immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings to fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly administer and interpret U.S. immigration laws. GAO was asked to review EOIR's management of the immigration court system and options for improving EOIR's performance. This report addresses, among other things, (1) what EOIR data indicate about its caseload, including the backlog of cases; (2) how EOIR manages and oversees immigration court operations, including workforce planning and hiring; and (3) the extent to which EOIR has assessed immigration court performance, including case continuance data. GAO analyzed EOIR's case data from fiscal years 2006 through 2015 - the most current data available - reviewed EOIR documentation, interviewed agency officials, and conducted visits to six immigration courts selected to include courts with relatively large and small case backlogs, among other things. GAO also interviewed experts and stakeholders selected based upon, among other things, their published work on the immigration court system. What GAO Recommends GAO is making 11 recommendations to, among other things, improve EOIR's workforce planning, hiring, and analysis of continuance data. EOIR stated that it agrees with most of the recommendations, but did not specify whether it agrees with individual recommendations. GAO continues to believe that all 11 recommendations remain valid as discussed further in this report. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2017. 153p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-17-438: Accessed June 5, 2017 at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/685022.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/685022.pdf Shelf Number: 145908 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Immigration CourtsImmigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Problem-Solving Courts |
Author: Eagly, Ingrid Title: Detaining Families: A Study of Asylum Adjudication in Family Detention Summary: The United States currently detains more protection-seeking families than any nation in the world. Since 2001, parents and their children have been held at various times in five different detention facilities in New Mexico, Texas, and Pennsylvania, as they seek asylum in the United States. The number of detention beds reserved exclusively for families has ballooned since the first facility opened in 2001. Between 2001 and 2016, capacity reserved exclusively for detaining families increased by an astronomical 3,400 percent. Yet, despite this growth in detention, little is known about how these families fare in the immigration court process and what barriers they face in pursuing their asylum claims. This information is particularly important as government officials and policymakers weigh the use and potential expansion of family detention. This report presents findings from the first empirical analysis of asylum adjudication in family detention. Drawing on government data from over 18,000 immigration court proceedings initiated between fiscal years 2001 and 2016, this report documents how families detained in the United States' family detention centers proceeded through the court process. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2018. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 16, 2018 at: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/detaining_families_a_study_of_asylum_adjudication_in_family_detention_final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/detaining_families_a_study_of_asylum_adjudication_in_family_detention_final.pdf Shelf Number: 0 Keywords: Asylum Seekers Family Detention Immigrant Detention Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration CourtsImmigration Policy |