☹️🤯CBP BLUNDERS BURDEN COURTS, INDIVIDUALS! — DHS Fails On “Ministerial Act” Of Filing NTA In 1 Of 6 Cases, Causing Massive Dismissals!

TRAC reports:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/691/

DHS Fails to File Paperwork Leading to Large Numbers of Dismissals

Published Jul 29, 2022

One out of every six new cases DHS initiates in Immigration Court are now being dismissed because CBP officials are not filing the actual “Notice to Appear” (NTA) with the Court. The latest case-by-case Court records obtained and analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University through a series of Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests show a dramatic increase in these cases. See Figure 1. The number of case closures along with those dismissed because no NTA was filed are shown in Table 1.

Figure 1. Immigration Court Cases Dismissed Because DHS Failed to File a “Notice to Appear” to Initiate Court Proceedings, FY 2013 – FY 2022 (through June)

Table 1. Immigration Court Cases Dismissed Because DHS Failed to File a “Notice to Appear” to Initiate Court Proceedings, FY 2013 – FY 2022 (through June)

Fiscal Year All Court Completions Dismissed: No NTA Filed

Number Percent

2013 167,446 355 0.2%

2014 160,483 225 0.1%

2015 168,684 41 0.0%

2016 178,052 11 0.0%

2017 179,153 84 0.0%

2018 193,391 505 0.3%

2019 276,647 4,686 1.7%

2020 243,367 5,952 2.4%

2021 144,751 15,244 10.5%

2022* 284,446 47,330 16.6%

* Through the first 9 months (Oct-June 2022). If pattern continues, FY 2022 would end with 63,107 projected dismissals.

Ten years ago this failure to file a NTA was rare. But as the onset in Table 1 shows, the frequency increased once Border Patrol agents were given the ability to use the Immigration Court’s Interactive Scheduling System (ISS). Using ISS, the agents can directly schedule the initial hearing (i.e. a master calendar hearing) at the Immigration Court. Supposedly, the actual NTA is created at the same time, and a copy given to the asylum seeker or other noncitizen with the scheduled hearing location and time they are to show up in Court noted on the NTA.

Thus, the process only requires that CBP actually follow up with the ministerial task of seeing that the Court also receives a copy of the NTA. With the implementation of the Court’s ECAS system of e-filing, this should have made the process quick and straightforward. That this is failing to be done suggests there is a serious disconnect between the CBP agents entering new cases and scheduling hearings through the Court’s ISS system, and other CBP personnel responsible for submitting a copy to the Court.

This is exceedingly wasteful of the Court’s time. It is also problematic for the immigrant (and possibly their attorney) if they show up at hearings only to have the case dismissed by the Immigration Judge because the case hasn’t actually been filed with the Court.

Where Is This Problem Occurring?

TRAC has sought, but has yet been unable to obtain, information on the specific Border Patrol units and locations where failure to file these NTAs is occurring. However, an analysis of all Court hearing locations finds that there are some Courts where the majority of all case completions are these dismissals for failing to file the NTA.

Leading the list in terms of the number of these NTA closures is the Dedicated Docket hearing location in Miami. Fully 7,700 out of the total of 9,492 case completions during FY 2022 — or 81 percent — were dismissals because the Court had not received the NTA.

While the situation for the Dedicated Docket in Miami was extreme, a number of Dedicated Docket locations have much higher dismissal rates than occur nationally where 1 out of 6 (17%) of case completions are closed for this reason. In Boston’s Dedicated Docket the rate of dismissal during the first 9 months of FY 2022 has been 62 percent, and in New York’s and Los Angeles’ Dedicated Dockets the rate is 32 percent – almost twice the national average.

But other Dedicated Docket locations have below average dismissal rates. These include San Francisco with 11 percent, New York’s separate Broadway DD hearing location with 15 percent, and Newark with 16 percent. [1] While It would appear that a policy which tries to accelerate the scheduling and hearing of cases puts additional pressure on DHS to promptly file, it isn’t an insurmountable burden. [2]

Further, some regular hearing locations have also been experiencing high dismissal rates because of DHS’s failure to file NTAs. These include Houston with 54 percent, Miami with 43 percent, and Chicago with 26 percent.

For a list of Immigration Court hearing locations with their individual dismissal rates because of DHS’s failure to file the NTA see Table 2.

Table 2. Immigration Court Cases by Hearing Location Dismissed Because DHS Failed to File a “Notice to Appear” to Initiate Court Proceedings in FY 2022 (October 2021-June 2022)

Court Hearing Location All Court Completions Dismissed: No NTA Filed Rank: No NTA

Number Percent Number Percent

All 284,446 47,330 17%

IAD designated Hearing Locations* 5,516 5,516 100% 3 1

Miami – Dedicated Docket – DD 9,492 7,700 81% 1 2

Boston – Dedicated Docket – DD 2,752 1,698 62% 6 3

Houston, Texas 7,518 4,064 54% 4 4

Miami, Florida 16,644 7,155 43% 2 5

El Paso – Dedicated Docket – DD 169 69 41% 48 6

Los Angeles – Dedicated Docket – DD 3,006 974 32% 10 7

New York – Dedicated Docket – DD 3,436 1,098 32% 8 8

Chicago, Illinois 5,006 1,292 26% 7 9

Denver – Dedicated Docket – DD 1,019 258 25% 32 10

Orlando, Florida 3,437 640 19% 19 11

Charlotte 6,057 979 16% 9 12

New York Varick 4,254 676 16% 17 13

Newark – Dedicated Docket – DD 1,854 290 16% 29 14

Atlanta Non-Detained Juvenile 421 65 15% 49 15

NYB – Dedicated Docket – DD 1,183 179 15% 33 16

MPP Brownsville Gateway International Bridge 848 126 15% 37 17

Houston – S. Gessner 6,179 914 15% 11 18

Leland Federal Building 3,241 477 15% 23 19

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 5,284 748 14% 14 20

Santa Ana Immigration Court 6,257 874 14% 12 21

Chicago Non-Detained Juveniles 101 14 14% 65 22

New York City, New York 21,202 2,784 13% 5 23

Boston, Massachusetts 5,793 748 13% 14 24

New Orleans, Louisiana 5,139 647 13% 18 25

Arlington, Virginia 6,546 821 13% 13 26

Phoenix, Arizona 3,869 480 12% 22 27

San Juan, Puerto Rico 406 49 12% 52 28

Denver, Colorado 4,547 506 11% 20 29

San Francisco – Dedicated Docket – DD 1,437 159 11% 35 30

New York Broadway 6,593 708 11% 16 31

Sacramento Immigration Court 1,285 131 10% 36 32

Kansas City, Missouri 1,145 115 10% 41 33

Omaha, Nebraska 1,419 125 9% 38 34

San Diego, California 3,539 289 8% 30 35

Atlanta, Georgia 3,596 285 8% 31 36

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 220 17 8% 61 37

San Diego – Dedicated Docket – DD 288 22 8% 60 38

El Paso, Texas 2,208 168 8% 34 39

Las Vegas, Nevada 1,622 119 7% 40 40

Detroit, Michigan 1,953 124 6% 39 41

Van Nuys Immigration Court 6,405 388 6% 24 42

Houston Greenspoint Park 5,738 338 6% 26 43

Buffalo, New York 1,439 82 6% 43 44

Cleveland, Ohio 5,557 316 6% 27 45

Laredo Immigration Court 443 25 6% 58 46

San Francisco, California 9,277 502 5% 21 47

Mia Non-Detained Juveniles 536 29 5% 53 48

Newark, New Jersey 6,568 345 5% 25 49

San Francisco Non-Detained Juveniles 226 11 5% 68 50

Honolulu, Hawaii 278 13 5% 66 51

MPP Court El Paso 604 27 4% 55 52

Seattle – Dedicated Docket – DD 588 26 4% 56 53

Harlingen, Texas 1,811 78 4% 46 54

Portland, Oregon 1,281 54 4% 51 55

MPP Laredo,texas – Port of Entry 143 6 4% 72 56

Salt Lake City, Utah 1,949 80 4% 44 57

Tucson, Arizona 791 29 4% 53 58

MPP Court San Ysidro Port 195 7 4% 71 59

Charlotte Juvenile 477 17 4% 61 60

Reno, Nevada 330 11 3% 68 61

Memphis, Tennessee 3,837 114 3% 42 62

Hartford Juvenile 144 4 3% 73 63

Los Angeles – North Los Angeles Street 3,253 78 2% 46 64

Los Angeles, California 12,702 304 2% 28 65

Hartford, Connecticut 2,596 60 2% 50 66

Bloomington 3,577 79 2% 45 67

Imperial, California 497 9 2% 70 68

Bloomington Juvenile 177 3 2% 77 69

Arlington Juvenile 950 16 2% 64 70

Boston Unaccompanied Juvenile 817 13 2% 66 71

Detroit – Dedicated Docket – DD 200 3 2% 77 72

Memphis Juvenile 288 4 1% 73 73

Philadelphia Juvenile 375 4 1% 73 74

San Antonio, Texas 3,015 26 1% 56 75

Florence, Arizona 270 2 1% 79 76

Dallas, Texas 3,667 23 1% 59 77

New Orleans Juvenile 166 1 1% 81 78

Seattle, Washington 3,170 17 1% 61 79

Baltimore, Maryland 2,772 4 0% 73 80

Hyattsville Immigration Court 1,939 2 0% 79 81

Louisville, Kentucky 1,110 1 0% 81 82

Pearsall, Texas – Detention Facility 1,505 0 0% none none

Winn Correctional Facility 1,342 0 0% none none

Port Isabel Service Processing Center 1,324 0 0% none none

San Francisco Annex 1,017 0 0% none none

Stewart Detention Center – Lumpkin Georgia – LGD 866 0 0% none none

Conroe Immigration Court 754 0 0% none none

Baltimore, Maryland Juvenile 737 0 0% none none

Aurora Immigration Court 676 0 0% none none

San Antonio Satellite Office 654 0 0% none none

Boise, Idaho 575 0 0% none none

Moshannon Valley Correctional Facility 574 0 0% none none

Stewart Immigration Court 569 0 0% none none

T. Don Hutto Residential 527 0 0% none none

Jackson Parish 496 0 0% none none

Krome North Service Processing Center 474 0 0% none none

Prairieland Detention Center 470 0 0% none none

Imperial Detained 462 0 0% none none

Atlanta Non-Detained 417 0 0% none none

Otay Mesa Detention Center 407 0 0% none none

Chicago Detained 406 0 0% none none

Laredo, Texas – Detention Facility 404 0 0% none none

Lasalle Detention Facility 390 0 0% none none

Northwest Detention Center 382 0 0% none none

Eloy INS Detention Center 381 0 0% none none

Polk County Detention Facility 377 0 0% none none

El Paso Service Processing Center 372 0 0% none none

Otero County Processing Center 350 0 0% none none

Southwest Key 348 0 0% none none

Bluebonnet Detention Center 344 0 0% none none

Cleveland Juvenile 340 0 0% none none

Rio Grande Detention Center 319 0 0% none none

Denver Family Unit 282 0 0% none none

DHS-Litigation Unit/Oakdale 259 0 0% none none

Caroline Detention Facility 248 0 0% none none

Immigration Court 247 0 0% none none

Denver – Juvenile 245 0 0% none none

Houston Service Processing Center 240 0 0% none none

La Palma Eloy 237 0 0% none none

Batavia Service Processing Center 228 0 0% none none

Karnes County Correction Center 224 0 0% none none

Mcfarland-Mcm For Males 224 0 0% none none

River Correctional Facility 221 0 0% none none

Dilley – Stfrc 217 0 0% none none

Boston Detained 215 0 0% none none

Broward Transitional Center 202 0 0% none none

San Antonio Non-Detained Juvenile 182 0 0% none none

La Palma 179 0 0% none none

Seattle Non-Detained Juveniles 177 0 0% none none

Louisville Juvenile 175 0 0% none none

Orange County Correctional Facility 173 0 0% none none

Cibola County Correctional Center 161 0 0% none none

South Louisiana Correctional Center 161 0 0% none none

Richwood Correctional Center 158 0 0% none none

Nye County 150 0 0% none none

Kansas City Immigration Court – Detained 148 0 0% none none

San Diego Non-Detained Juvenile 142 0 0% none none

Bloomington Detained 137 0 0% none none

Desert View 131 0 0% none none

Giles W. Dalby Correctional Institution 122 0 0% none none

Joe Corley Detention Facility 116 0 0% none none

Texas DOC- Huntsville 112 0 0% none none

Torrance County Detention Facility 109 0 0% none none

Calhoun County Jail 107 0 0% none none

* Note all closures are for the failure to file a NTA. The Court created these special “IAD locational codes” ultimately within 77 Courts beginning back in July 2018. The cases they handle appear to consistently close because no NTA was filed. In FY 2022 these “IAD” dismissals were recorded as spread across 31 different Immigration Courts (“base cities”). Thus, this “IAD” tag appears to function largely as a book-keeping measure to separate out these dismissals from the rest of the Court’s proceedings at these diverse locations.

Footnotes

[1]^ Three other Dedicated Docket locations which have a relatively small number of closures to date also weren’t experiencing high dismissal rates. These included Detroit where only 3 out of its 200 closures (2%) were because the NTA hadn’t been filed; Seattle with just 26 cases dismissed out of its 588 closures (4%); and San Diego with 22 dismissals out of its 288 closures (8%).

[2]^ See TRAC’s January 2022 report noting significant dismissal rates for failure to file at Dedicated Docket hearing locations. The rate then was 10 percent so the problem has considerably worsened since then.

TRAC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit data research center affiliated with the Newhouse School of Public Communications and the Whitman School of Management, both at Syracuse University. For more information, to subscribe, or to donate, contact trac@syr.edu or call 315-443-3563.

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

It’s not rocket science! 🚀

Compare the reality of easily fixable systemic Government failures with gimmicks and harsh sanctions meant to dishonestly shift blame and consequences to individual victims.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-31-22

☹️ 1.82 Million Souls Left In Limbo — Due Process Denying “Gimmicks” & Minor Tinkering Fail To Stem EOIR’s Burgeoning Backlog! — There Is No Substitute For Long-Overdue Practical Progressive Reforms!

Jarndyce v. Jarndyce: “The suit does not sleep; we wake it up, we air it, we walk it about. Thats something.”
From “Bleak House” by Charles Dickens (1895).
Garland has created a “Dickensonian” nightmare @ EOIR — including rushing some arbitrarily selected poor souls through his broken system to deportation orders with little or no process at all, let alone due process of law!

TRAC Immigration reports:

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Pace of Immigration Court Processing Increases While Backlog Continues to Climb

The latest case-by-case records show that the Immigration Court backlog reached 1,821,440 at the end of June 2022. This is up 25 percent from the backlog just at the beginning of this fiscal year. These figures are based on the analysis of the latest court records obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University.

New Immigration Court cases continue to outstrip the number of cases being closed. So far during the first nine months the court received 634,594 new cases, but has only managed to dispose of 287,711. These closures took 1,130 days on average or more than three years from the date of the Notice to Appear (NTA) to the court’s disposition. Part of the delay represents the time it took from the Department of Homeland Security to actually file the NTA after it was issued. This delay reached record levels during the Trump administration three years ago, but NTAs are being filed much more promptly under the current administration.

The pace of court closures also has been accelerating. After the partial government shutdown in March 2020, court closures averaged just 6,172 per month for the remainder of that fiscal year. During FY 2021, court closures roughly doubled to 12,055 on average per month. By the end of the first six months of FY 2022, monthly closures had again doubled to an average of 23,957 per month. And this last quarter covering just the three-month period from April – June 2022, monthly closures doubled again to 47,991 on average each month.

According to court statistics, immigration judges on board at the beginning of this past quarter had increased just 6 percent over levels at the beginning of FY 2022. Thus, the increase in judge hiring only accounts for some of this speedier pace. A more important factor appears to be the many changes implemented by the Biden administration to increase the speed that court cases get scheduled and decided. However, as TRAC has reported, the increase in speed has come with heightened due process concerns, increasing the number of asylum seekers unable to secure legal representation which then greatly diminishes their opportunity to adequately prepare and present their asylum claims.

For more highlights on the Immigration Court, updated through June 2022, go to:

Immigration Court Quick Facts

For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools and their latest update go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools

If you want to be sure to receive a notification whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

https://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1

Follow us on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/tracreports

or like us on Facebook:

https://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University Peck Hall
601 E. Genesee Street
Syracuse, NY 13202-3117
315-443-3563
trac@syr.edu
https://trac.syr.edu

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.

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

Needed:

New, visionary, innovative, creative, due-process-focused leadership @ EOIR;
Better judges with established records of fair, practical, scholarship and proven expertise in immigration, due process, and constitutional law;
An Attorney General who understands the need for the foregoing and has the backbone to put it in place and then let the “pros” solve the problems!

This broken and failing system and its toxic discredited “culture of denial, fake expediency, and false deterrence” needs a radical overhaul — NOW!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-16-22

🏴‍☠️🤮👎🏽INJUSTICE IN AMERICA: TIME MAGGIE SPOTLIGHTS GARLAND’S BROKEN “COURTS,” BURGEONING BACKLOGS!

Jasmine Aguilera reports for Time:

https://time.com/6140280/immigration-court-backlog/

Roughly 1.6 million people are caught up in an ever-expanding backlog in United States immigration court, according to new data tracking cases through December 2021. Those with open immigration cases must now wait for a decision determining their legal status for an average of 58 months—nearly five years.

Though the immigration court backlog has been getting longer for more than a decade, a deluge of new cases added between October and December 2021 significantly worsened wait times, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a research institution at Syracuse University that obtained the figures through Freedom of Information Act requests. The backlog increased by nearly 140,000 during that period, the fastest growth on record and the direct result of an uptick in arrests by agencies housed under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

. . . .

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

Read Jasmine’s complete article at the link!

1.6 million is just the “trip of the iceberg.” Each of those human beings potentially has family, friends, co-workers, teachers, fellow students, relatives, employers, employees, neighbors, sponsors, fellow parishioners, students, investors, etc. tied up in the trauma of their wait and the often arbitrary and capricious results once they get a final hearing. Virtually every community in America has a stake in Garland’s tragically broken “court” system.

Just applying TRAC’s math from recent studies, even in a time of inculturated anti-immigrant, anti-asylum bias and bad, skewed interpretations at EOIR, more than half of those in backlog would earn the right to stay in America if they could get an individual hearting. But, in Garland’s broken and mis-prioritized system, “getting a merits hearing” is a “big if.” Many of those in the backlog are already doing “essential work” or have the job skills we need if their only be normalized. Garland’s failure is America’s trauma, and wasted human capital, and squandered Government resources.

A few other “lowlights:”

“Fewer than 1% of those new cases brought by ICE and CBP beginning in October 2021 involved alleged criminal activity.” So much for “new priorities.”
“A spokesperson for the Department of Justice’s Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees the immigration court system, said courts have been relying on technology to continue operations, but blamed the on-going pandemic for the worsening backlog.” An absurdist “cop-out,” as those familiar with EOIR’s chronically bad technology and failure to adequately prepare and deal with COVID know. Poor and imperious communication with the public has also been a feature of EOIR (mis)management during the pandemic!
“One reason is an ever-increasing number of new immigration cases swamping the system, as both the Obama and Trump Administrations issued millions of deportation orders.” Truth is that despite DHS and EOIR attempts to shift blame to the victims, the backlog is largely self-created.
“But the problem cannot be solved by asking the existing immigration judges to work harder or faster, Long says.” Nor, with due respect to TRAC’s Susan Long, will it be solved by throwing more judges and resources into a biased, unfair, totally dysfunctional, anti-due-process, broken system. Fix the system first with common-sense progressive reforms, replace bad judges, hire new judges on a merit basis, with outside expert input, focusing on hiring judges with records of commitment to due process and fundamental fairness and established immigration/human rights expertise! Then, once fairness, expertise, quality, and efficiency have been established and institutionalized, decide whether the system should be expanded and, if so, how to do it. (Hint: Many experts believe that 500 completions annually is the most reasonable expectation for well-functioning, expert Immigration Judges complying with due process and “best practices.” That means the current system of approximately 560 IJ’s has a maximum capacity of 250,000 to 300,000 completions annually. DHS Enforcement must be required to work within those realistic limits in bringing new cases before the court.)
“While the dedicated docket was designed to address the backlog for recently-arrived families, it failed to take into account the staggering systemic failures at work, according to immigration lawyers, advocacy organizations and elected officials.” It was a “proven failure enforcement gimmick” as experts told Garland from the “git go.” A competent AG committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and the rule of law would have rejected this bad idea out of hand.
“There’s a long, long laundry list of things that have been tried in the past,” Long says. “It’s not going to be a quick fix.” I respectfully dissent! This isn’t rocket science! It’s a combination of cleaning out the deadwood, bringing in competence and progressive expertise in judging and administration, common sense, long overdue progressive reforms, creative thinking, appointing a BIA of expert appellate judges to issue sound legal precedents, require best practices, and hold judges, DOJ officials, and DHS personnel accountable for their often intentional undermining of justice in Immigration Court. As alluded to by Long, Garland had the incredible advantage of a laundry list of “enforcement and just pedal faster gimmicks” that are proven failures! Garland knew in advance what NOT to do and what NOT to try. He also had access to an impressive array of practical scholarship and that produced sound, straightforward recommendations on how to fix the system. He had a golden opportunity to shake up the system on “Day One,” “clean house,” and bring in the new progressive experts and dynamic leaders to fix the system. Yes, I recognize that as Long suggests, the system won’t be fixed “overnight.” But, had Garland acted promptly and timely, the system could already be showing dramatic improvements on all levels. You have to start the process of reform and improvement somewhere. Garland’s dilatory approach to EOIR has greatly increased the difficulty. But, fixing EOIR is still “low hanging fruit” for the Administration if they only had the backbone and vision to “blow up” the current failed and flailing EOIR and bring in and empower experts to start taking names, kicking tail, and implementing due process and best practices reforms.
Garland apparently has operated on the false premise that fixing “Immigration Courts” isn’t a priority and that advice and assistance of progressive experts can just be “blown off” in favor of the type of politically-driven, bogus-enforcement-oriented, bureaucratic nonsense that is endemic at DOJ and DHS. Not happening! And continued aggressive litigation by the NDPA is an essential element of stopping the injustice and holding Garland and his flunkies accountable. That litigation is not going to stop either unless, and until, one way or another, Garland is forced to take notice and make the obvious progressive reforms and improvements.

Alfred E. Neumann — Garland’s management “style” and unwillingness to bring in the progressive experts necessary to radically reform EOIR has become a huge part of the problem, propelling an already broken system to new heights of dysfunction, disorder, and injustice!
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

I’m no fan of Virginia’s new GOP neo-fascist Attorney General Jason Miyares. But, before the end of Inauguration Day, the heads were rolling, and his message was very clear: liberalism, environmental protection, racial justice, good government, and public health are out — far-right neo-fascism is in! Get with the program or get out! Republicans loved it, Dems hated it. But it happened!

By sharp contrast, Garland is still running EOIR with much of the same personnel and many of the same broken and bad policies of his predecessors, Trump, and Stephen Miller. That’s a good illustration of why “Democrats can’t govern” while Republicans constantly outflank them and dismantle the system in short order. What’s the future of a party that doesn’t recognize its own self-interest, the common good, and act and govern accordingly?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-24-22

🤯🆘GARLAND’S MAJOR “ACHIEVEMENT:” BUILD BIGGER IMMIGRATION COURT BACKLOGS FASTER! — “Philly-Sized” Backup Continues To Mushroom! 🍄

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Immigration Court Backlog Now Growing Faster Than Ever, Burying Judges in an Avalanche of Cases

The U.S. Immigration Court system is currently staring up a mountain of pending cases that at the end of December 2021 reached 1,596,193 — the largest in history. If every person with a pending immigration case were gathered together it would be larger than the population of Philadelphia, the sixth largest city in the United States. Previous administrations — all the way back through at least the George W. Bush administration — have failed when they tried to tackle the seemingly intractable problem of the Immigration Court “backlog.”

Yet a disturbing new trend has emerged during the Biden administration that demands attention: since the start of the Biden administration, the growth of the backlog has been accelerating at a breakneck pace.

Quarterly growth in the number of pending Immigration Court cases between October and December 2021 is the largest on record. In just this short period, the backlog increased by almost 140,000 cases. This far exceeds any 3-month increase during the most dramatic period of growth of the Trump administration. These findings suggest that the Immigration Courts are entering a worrying new era of even more crushing caseloads — all the more concerning since no attempt at a solution has yet been able to reverse the avalanche of cases that Immigration Judges now face.

The partial Court shutdown during the COVID-19 pandemic has, of course, contributed to the backlog’s growth. However, the main contributor is the recent deluge of new cases filed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). If the current pace during the first quarter of FY 2022 of newly arriving Notices to Appear (NTAs) continues, the Court will receive 800,000 new cases — at least 300,000 more than the annual total the Court has ever received during its existence.

For full details, including a review of the history leading to this juncture, read the full report at:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/675

If you want to be sure to receive a notification whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

https://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1

Follow us on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/tracreports

or like us on Facebook:

https://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Syracuse University Peck Hall

601 E. Genesee Street

Syracuse, NY 13202-3117

315-443-3563

trac@syr.edu

https://trac.syr.edu

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University.

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

What’s Garland’s next target: a backlog bigger than Chicago, New York, Los Angeles?

Garland was warned in advance about the extreme dysfunction in his courts and the urgent need to make fixing it one of his highest priorities. Instead of immediately bringing in progressive experts, replacing the BIA, hiring better judges and innovative administrators to address the backlog, attack poor judicial quality, and curb abuse of the system by DHS, Garland has simply failed to take due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices seriously. He has also compounded the disaster by using “proven to fail” enforcement and deterrence gimmicks and retaining poor quality managers and judges packed into the system by Sessions and Barr.

The worse the dysfunction gets under Garland, the harder it will be to convince the “best and brightest” to undertake the challenge of fixing it!

Also, time’s a wasting. The first year of any Administration is the time to get things done. Garland has already squandered that precious time!

This system is totally out of control and crushing the lives and futures of those caught up in it. Sadly, nobody in power in any of the three branches seems interested, motivated, or courageous enough to fix it. That’s bad for our democracy!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-18-22

👍🏼⚖️🗽MAJORITY OF ASYLUM SEEKERS WIN THEIR CASES, EVEN IN A BROKEN & BIASED SYSTEM INTENTIONALLY STACKED AGAINST THEM — But, Only, If They Can Get To A “Merits Adjudication!” — Nativist Lies, Myths, Driving USG Policies Exposed! — Why USCIS & EOIR Self-Created Backlogs Primarily Shaft Those Deserving Legal Protection Of Some Type!

The “Gauleiter”s” policies of “transportation” of legal asylum seekers to danger zones or death has, to a totally unacceptable extent, been adopted by the Biden Administration. America’s cowardly, immoral, illegal, and unethical treatment of these vulnerable individuals will haunt our nation for generations to come! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/672/

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

. . . .

Completed Asylum Cases and Outcomes

Asylum grant rates have often been the focus of public attention and discussion. An implicit assumption is often made that if the immigrants’ asylum applications are denied that they have been unsuccessful in their quest to legally remain in the U.S. However, this may not always be the case. In addition to asylum, there are often other avenues for relief, and other types of decisions where the Immigration Court can determine that an individual should be allowed to legally remain in the U.S. This report breaks new ground in empirically documenting just how often asylum seekers’ quests to legally remain in the U.S. have been successful.

According to case-by-case records of the Immigration Courts, Immigration Judges completed close to one million cases (967,552) on which asylum applications had been filed during the last 21 years (October 2000 – September 2021). Of these, judges granted asylum to 249,413 or one-quarter (26%) of these cases.

However, only about half of asylum seekers were ordered deported. More specifically, just 42 percent received removal orders or their equivalent,[4] and an additional 8 percent received so-called voluntary departure orders. These orders require the asylum seekers to leave the country, but unlike removal orders voluntary departure orders do not penalize individuals further by legally barring them for a period of years from reentry should their circumstances change.

The remaining one-quarter (24%) of asylum seekers were granted other forms or relief or Immigration Judges closed their cases using other grounds which allowed asylum seekers to legally remain in the country.[5] When this proportion is added to asylum grant rates, half of asylum seekers in Immigration Court cases — about twice the individuals granted asylum — have been successful in their quest to legally remain in the United States at least for a period of time. See Figure 5.

Figure 5. Outcome of U.S. Asylum Applications, October 2000 – September 2021

(Click for larger image)

Focusing on just Immigration Court asylum cases, however, does not take into consideration asylum seekers who have asylum granted by Asylum Officers from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Those cases end there with the asylum grant. Only unsuccessful cases are forwarded to the Immigration Court for review afresh, and thus included in the Immigration Court’s records. These referrals of asylum denials by USCIS Asylum Officers are classified in the Court’s records as affirmative asylum cases,[6] to distinguish them from those that start with DHS seeking a removal order from the Immigration Court and the asylum claim being raised as a defense against removal.

Thus, a more complete picture of asylum seekers to the U.S. would add in the asylum grants by USCIS on these affirmative cases. Over the period since October 2000, the total number of asylum grants totals just under 600,000 cases – more than double the asylum grants by Immigration Judges alone.[7] Asylum Officers granted asylum in just over 350,000 cases, while Immigration Judges granted asylum in an additional close to 250,000 cases. See Tables 5a and 5b.

Asylum grants thus make up almost half (46%) of the outcomes on the total number of 1.3 million cases closed in which asylum applications were filed. An additional one in five (18%) were granted some other form of relief or otherwise allowed to legally remain in the U.S. Thus, almost two-thirds (64%) of asylum seekers in the 1.3 million cases which were resolved have been successful over the past two decades.

Figure 5 above presents a side-by-side comparison of asylum case outcomes when examining Immigration Court completions alone, and how outcome percentages shift once Asylum Officers’ asylum grants are combined with decisions made by Immigration Judges.

. . . .

Outcome on Asylum Cases Number Percent**

IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases

Asylum Granted by IJ 249,413 26%

Other Relief, etc. 236,889 24%

Removal Order 403,252 42%

Voluntary Departure Order 77,998 8%

Total IJ Asylum Completions 967,552 100%

USCIS + IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases

Asylum Granted by USCIS+IJ 599,772 46%

Other Relief, etc by IJ 236,889 18%

Removal Order by IJ 403,252 31%

Voluntary Departure Order by IJ 77,998 6%

USCIS + IJ Asylum Completions 1,317,911 100%

. . . .

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

Read the complete TRAC report, containing all the graphs and charts that I could not adequately reproduce, at the link.

Applying the 50% “granted protection of some type” rate in Immigration Court to the ever expanding backlog of 667,000 asylum cases in Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR, that means that there are at least 333,000 asylum seekers who should be “out of Garland’s backlog” and legally living, working, and/or studying in the U.S., probably over 165,000 of whom should be on the way to green cards, citizenship, or already citizens in a functional system!

And, the TRAC-documented success rate has been achieved in a system that has been designed with bias to deter and discourage asylum seekers with mediocre, or even hostile, judges, a BIA that lacks asylum expertise and turns out incorrect restrictionist precedents, and administrative leadership that specializes in ineptitude, toadyism, and mindless “aimless docket reshuffling.”

Obviously, the “get to stay” rate would be much higher with better-qualified, better-trained, merit-selected judges, guided and kept in line by a BIA of America’s best and brightest appellate judges with proven expertise in asylum, immigration, human rights, due process, and racial justice, and dynamic, inspiring, well-qualified leadership. For a great example of what “could have been” with a better AG, see, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/12/18/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%97%bd%f0%9f%87%ba%f0%9f%87%b8courts-justice-courtside-proudly-announces-the-dream-bia-its-out-there-even-if-garland/.

Better problem-solving-focused judicial leadership at EOIR could come up with innovative ways of screening and getting the many aged, grantable cases of asylum seekers and other migrants (cancellation of removal, SIJS, and “stateside processing” come to mind) out of the Immigration Court backlog and into an alternative setting where relief could granted more efficiently. For the most part, there is no useful purpose to be served by keeping cases more than three years old on the Immigration Court docket.

The Immigration Courts must work largely in “real time” with real judges who can produce consistent, fair results on a predictable timetable. Big parts of that are increasing competent representation, providing better legal guidance on recognizing and promptly granting meritorious cases (that, significantly, would also guide the USCIS Asylum Office), and standing up to efforts by DHS Enforcement to overwhelm judicial resources and use Immigration Courts to “warehouse and babysit” the results of their own mismanagement and misdirection of resources.

There’s no chance that Garland (based on inept and disinterested performance to date, and his near total lack of awareness and urgency) and the crew, largely of Sessions/Barr holdovers, currently comprising his EOIR can pull it off. That’s a monumental problem for migrants and American justice generally!

Without an AG with the guts, determination, expertise, and vision to “clean house” at EOIR and DOJ, or alternatively, a Congress that takes this mess out of the DOJ and creates a real Article I Immigration Court system, backlogs, fundamental unfairness, and incompetence at EOIR will continue to drag down the American legal system.

Worthy of note: The TRAC stats confirm the generally held belief that those asylum seekers held in detention (the “New American Gulag” or “NAG”) are very significantly less likely to be granted relief than those appearing in a non-detained setting. But, what would be helpful, perhaps a task for “practical scholars” somewhere, would be to know “why.”

Is it because the cases simply are not a strong, because of criminal backgrounds or otherwise? Or, is it because of the chronic lack of representation, intentional coercion, and generally less sympathetic judges often present in detention settings? Or, as is likely, is it some combination of all these factors?

Also worthy of note: Three major non-detained courts, with approximately 31,000 pending asylum cases, had success rates significantly below (20% or more) the national average of 50%:

Houston (19%)
Atlanta (29%)
Harlingen (24%)

On the “flip side,” I was somewhat pleasantly surprised to see that the oft-criticized El Paso Immigration Court (non-detained) had a very respectable 48% success rate — a mere 2% off the national average! Interesting!

Also worthy of watching: Although based on a tiny, non-statistically-valid sampling (2% of filed asylum cases), Houston-Greenspoint had a 53% grant rate, compared with “Houston non-detained’s” measly 19%. If this trend continues — and it well might not, given the very small sample — it would certainly be worthy knowing the reasons for this great disparity.

In addition to “giving lie” to the bogus claims, advanced mostly by GOP nativists, but also by some Dems and officials in Dem Administrations, that most asylum seekers don’t have valid claims to remain, the exact opposite appears to be true! Keeping asylum seekers from getting fair and timely dispositions of their cases hurts them at least as much, probably more, than any legitimate Government interest.

Moreover, it strongly suggests that hundreds of thousands of legitimate asylum seekers with bona fide claims for protection have been illegally and immorally returned to danger or death without any semblance of due process under a combination of a bogus Title 42 rationale and an equally bogus “Remain in Mexico” travesty. It should also prompt some meaningful evaluation of the intellectual and moral failings of Administrations or both parties, poorly-qualified Article III judges, and legislators who have encouraged, enforced, or enabled these “crimes against humanity” — and the most vulnerable in humanity to boot!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-24-21

☹️👎🏽🤡 TRAC: BUILD BACK BETTER MAY BE DOA, BUT “BUILD BACKLOG BIGGER (FASTER)” THRIVES @ GARLAND’S EOIR! — BACKLOG TOPS 1.5 MILLION WITH NO PLAN OR END IN SIGHT! — Backlog Building Rate Accelerates, As ADR Runs Amuck & Garland Shuns Expert Advice, Progressive Judicial Appointments, Creative Solutions! — Now On Pace To Break 2 Million Mark By End Of Summer 2022!

Michigan Stadium, America’s largest, holds 107,601. Garland has added almost that to his EOIR backlog in the first two months of FY 2022. It would take 15 Michigan Stadiums to hold all the folks waiting for hearings in Garland’s dysfunctional and backlogged Immigration Courts. And, that doesn’t include their families, communities, employers, co-workers and others affected by their fates!
Michigan Stadium Photo by Andrew Horne, Creative Commons License

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Immigration Courts Now Face Backlog of Over 1.5 Million Cases

According to data updated today by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University, the number of pending cases in Immigration Court has now reached 1,559,855 as of the end of November 2021. The high number of pending cases puts additional pressure on Immigration Judges who are tasked with deciding these cases.

The Transactional Research Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) a research organization at Syracuse University created ‘Quick Facts‘ tools to provide a user-friendly way to see the most updated data available on the Immigration Courts. The tools include easy-to-understand data in context and provide quotable descriptions. Many of TRAC’s Immigration Court data tools have also been updated and can be viewed by clicking here.

Additional key takeaways from today’s data release include the following:

Immigration Courts recorded receiving 143,803 new cases so far in FY 2022 as of November 2021. This compares with 43,156 cases that the court completed during this two-month period.

According to court records, only 0.51% of FY 2022 new cases sought deportation orders based on any alleged criminal activity of the immigrant, apart from possible illegal entry.

At the end of November 2021, 1,559,855 active cases were pending before the Immigration Court.

Harris County, TX, has the most residents with pending Immigration Court deportation cases (as of the end of November 2021).

So far this fiscal year (through November 2021), immigration judges have issued removal and voluntary departure orders in 24.0% of completed cases, totaling 10,357 deportation orders.

So far in FY 2022 (through November 2021), immigrants from Guatemala top list of nationalities with largest number ordered deported.

Only 20.7% of immigrants, including unaccompanied children, had an attorney to assist them in Immigration Court cases when a removal order was issued.

Immigration judges have held 4,193 bond hearings so far in FY 2022 (through November 2021). Of these 1,613 were granted bond.

For more information, see TRAC’s Quick Facts tools here or click here to learn more about TRAC’s entire suite of immigration tools.

If you want to be sure to receive a notification whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

https://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1

Follow us on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/tracreports

or like us on Facebook:

https://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
601 E. Genesee Street
Syracuse, NY 13202-3117
315-443-3563
trac@syr.edu
https://trac.syr.edu

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.

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

Wow! Garland “jacked up” the backlog by over 100,000 cases in the first two months of of FY 2022! Most impressive! That’s on a torrid pace to exceed 600,000 additional “warehoused” cases annually! At that rate, the Immigration Courts will hit the 2 million mark by the end of August 2022!

That puts the previous “Backlog Kings” Gonzo Apocalypto Sessions and Billy the Bigot Barr to shame!

And, it’s being achieved with more than twice the number of Immigration Judges on board than at the end of the Obama Administration in 2017! After the indolent judicial recruitment and hiring of the Obama era (an incredible average of more than two years to fill a judicial vacancy), the Trump AGs were able to “pack” the Immigration Courts with many judges whose primary qualification appeared to be willingness to grind out removal orders without regard to much besides the DOJ’s virulent anti-immigrant policies, the need to cut corners, and the consistent elevation of expediency over due process and judicial excellence.

One logically might have expected Garland to focus on “unpacking” this mess with an aggressive outreach outreach and new merit-based hiring and recruitment program that sought and valued experience representing individuals in Immigration Court at least as much as government prosecutorial backgrounds. But, not so much.

In particular, the BIA remains “well-packed” with Trump-era appointees, a number of whose appellate judicial credentials were questioned and criticized by immigration and human rights experts! No matter to Garland!

Even “gimmicks” like “dedicated dockets,” phantom, defective “Notices to Appear” (Master @ 9 AM Christmas AM, anyone?) designed to frustrate lawyers and produce in absentia removals, and ramming 80% of unaccompanied minors and others receiving removal orders through the system without lawyers haven’t stemmed the tides of systemic failure!

Truth is, only a distinct minority of recently completed cases resulted in removal or voluntary departure orders (24%). That, combined with the minuscule number of “new filings” that appear to meet the Administration’s highest priorities, criminal activity (0.51%) strongly suggests that the vast majority of pending cases, perhaps as many as 1 million, could be administratively closed, referred to USCIS, “fast-tracked” for relief, or otherwise taken off the docket without adverse effects to either party.

But, meaningful backlog reduction won’t happen with the current leadership and judicial composition at Garland’s EOIR. Inexplicably, Garland has chosen to keep the progressive “practical scholars and experts” with the vision, skills, and guts to address the backlog “on the sidelines.” See, e.g., “The Chen-Moskowitz Plan for Backlog Reduction,” https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/02/04/its-not-rocket-science-%f0%9f%9a%80-greg-chen-professor-peter-markowitz-can-cut-the-immigration-court-backlog-in-half-immediately-with-no-additional-resources-and/

Instead, Garland has chosen the “institutionalized mediocrity” and chronic mismanagement promoted by his Trumpy predecessors.

Almost every day, I read articles from Democratic politicos and pundits about the dire need to reform the Federal Judiciary to counteract the corrosive effects of radical right judicial appointments engineered by McConnell and right-wing interest groups. See, e.g., this Ruth Marcus op-ed in WashPost, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/28/supreme-court-decisions-abortion-guns-religious-freedom-loom/

But, despite such pontification, the fact is that the Dems and Garland have completely failed to reform and improve the quality of the one major court system they entirely “own” — the U.S. Immigration Courts. That makes speculation and debate about what could be done to reform and save the credibility of the Article III Courts nothing but feckless idle chatter!

While the DOJ has often pushed the “myth” that backlogs “benefit” immigrants, the truth is quite different. Insurmountable backlogs in Immigration Court, intertwined with Aimless Docket Reshuffling, deny due process to individuals, demoralize and penalize lawyers representing migrants (often serving pro bono or low bono), and cripple our overall justice system.

That’s a national tragedy of epic proportions, unfolding and worsening under Garland and the Dems, the reverberations of which will shake the very foundations of American democracy!

The Trumpsters successfully weaponized the Immigration Courts, without regard to law, institutional integrity, or outside protests and criticism! The Dems appear too timid, disinterested, discombobulated, and lacking in imagination and initiative to fix them while they have a chance! That’s not a good sign for American democracy!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-20-21

🤮SOME THINGS NEVER CHANGE: TRAC SAYS UNDER GARLAND EOIR JUVENILE DATA REMAINS BADLY FLAWED, UNUSABLE! — “EOIR has continued to ignore its growing data management problems.” — Duh!

Garland doesn’t worry about the mess at his EOIR. He leaves the worrying to EOIR’s long-suffering, frustrated, and angry “customers!” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Immigration Court’s Data on Minors Facing Deportation is Too Faulty to Be Trusted

After careful analysis and consideration, TRAC is forced to suspend its publication of data on juveniles facing deportation in Immigration Court due to serious, unresolved deficiencies in the EOIR’s data. TRAC’s analyses indicate that the data used by the Immigration Court for tracking and reporting on juveniles who are facing deportation appear to be seriously flawed to the point that we question whether the agency has the ability to meaningfully and reliably report on juveniles in its caseload.

We wrote to EOIR’s Acting Director Jean King on September 22, 2021 to share TRAC’s findings, request feedback from the agency, and offer to share additional details to support the agency’s efforts to identify and resolve the issues. TRAC did not receive any response to that letter. We wrote to the EOIR again on October 15, 2021, this time to Director David Neal who had subsequently been appointed as EOIR’s permanent director by Attorney General Merrick Garland. We reiterated our initial concerns, but TRAC did not receive a response to that letter either.

TRAC is now regretfully withdrawing its own Juvenile App since EOIR’s data are too flawed to be used. Because these significant data problems arose only at the time EOIR implemented a series of changes in the latter part of 2017 impacting how unaccompanied juveniles were tracked, the results compiled before these changes occurred will be retained online for use in historical research.

The Immigration Court’s failure to respond to or address TRAC’s findings of significant data quality issues regarding minors is particularly concerning given the highly sensitive nature of children facing deportation. This data quality problem on tracking juvenile cases adds to EOIR’s earlier refusal to address data quality issues regarding asylum cases that continue to disappear from the agency’s master database which it relies on to manage its workload. Furthermore, TRAC recently uncovered additional data problems leading EOIR to falsely report its asylum backlog had allegedly declined this past year when in fact the backlog had markedly grown.

Taken individually, each specific issue is significant and noteworthy in its own right. But taken together, these now multiple unresolved data quality issues are compounding upon each other. TRAC has repeatedly offered to work with the EOIR to aid the agency as it seeks an understanding of the problem and a meaningful solution—yet thus far EOIR has continued to ignore its growing data management problems.

The public should be increasingly troubled by the indifference that the Immigration Courts have shown to these issues and should push for improved transparency and accountability.

For further information about the problems in the Court’s juvenile data go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/669/

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
601 E. Genesee Street
Syracuse, NY 13202-3117
315-443-3563
trac@syr.edu
https://trac.syr.edu

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

Bogus data “supporting” false claims! Institutionalized sloppiness! Serious legal mistakes! Wildly inconsistent application of basic legal principles and standards! Chronic mismanagement! Backlogs on steroids! Lack of public responsiveness! Wrong personnel in the wrong jobs!

That’s “Garland’s EOIR!” To put it charitably, it’s a godawful mess and a festering cancer on our entire legal system!

EOIR is like something out of a Charles Dickens novel! But, it’s a harsh reality for the immigrants, families, and advocates subjected to this publicly financed hotbed of incompetence, indifference, and ineptness!

Obviously, running EOIR in even a minimally competent level is beyond Garland’s skill set and below his interest level! Stunningly, our Attorney General is unbothered by having legal “work product” that would embarrass any self-respecting L-1 churned out in his name by his “delegees.” Feeding false and misleading information to the public? Just “another day at the office” @ Garland’s EOIR!

Where’s the Congressional oversight? Where’s Article I?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-04-21

😎🗽ASYLUM GRANT RATES REBOUND MODESTLY UNDER BIDEN AFTER FOUR YEARS OF SYSTEMIC ARTIFICIAL WHITE NATIONALIST REPRESSION UNDER TRUMP, EVEN AS NUMBER OF ASYLUM DECISIONS RECEDES — Grant Rates Still Lag Far Behind FY 2012 When Well Over 50% Were Granted, Showing Inexcusable “Lost Decade” In EOIR’s Asylum Adjudications & Proper Legal Development Of Asylum Law!

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Asylum Grant Rates Climb Under Biden

Under the new Biden administration, asylum seekers are seeing greater success rates in securing asylum. While relief grant rates had fallen ever lower during the Trump years to just 29 percent in FY 2020, they rose to 37 percent in FY 2021 under President Biden.

However, with the ongoing partial Court shutdown during the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a sustained drop in the number of asylum decisions. Even with the greater odds of success, the number of asylum seekers who were granted asylum during FY 2021 was only 8,349 with an additional 402 granted another type of relief in place of asylum. In sheer numbers, this was only about half the number of asylum seekers who had been granted relief during FY 2020, the final year of the Trump administration.

The improved asylum grant rates during FY 2021 began only after the new Biden administration took office at the end of January 2021. Tracking asylum grant rates month-by-month rather than year-by-year, the increase in asylum grant rates under President Biden for the last quarter of FY 2021 (July-September 2021) was even larger: asylum seekers’ success rates climbed to 49 percent. Not only was this much higher than at any period during the Trump years, the asylum success rate was up five percentage points from 44 percent during the last quarter of the Obama administration.

Historically, asylum seekers have had greater success in the Immigration Court for affirmative as compared with defensive asylum cases. At one time, the majority of asylum applications decided by Immigration Judges were affirmative cases referred by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). However, most asylum applications today are considered defensive applications and filed in response to the Department of Homeland Security initiating removal proceedings in Immigration Court.

Asylum seekers who are represented by an attorney – as most are in affirmative asylum cases – have greatly increased odds of winning asylum or other forms of relief from deportation. For all Court decisions in FY 2021, nearly nine out of ten (89%) asylum seekers in affirmative and defensive cases were represented. This was clearly a vital factor in improving overall asylum success rates since in the prior year, FY 2020, representation rates were 80 percent or nine (9) percentage points lower.

Read the full report – the first in a two-part series – to obtain many more details about trends in Immigration Court asylum decisions over the past two decades at:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/667

The impact of gender, age, language, and nationality will be covered in the second report in this two-part series. Readers need not wait to probe these and many more details on asylum decisions using TRAC’s free web query tool — now updated through September 2021 and expanded to cover gender, age, and language details. As before users can also drill in to see how decisions vary geographically, by state, Immigration Court, and hearing location. Go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/asylum/

To examine a variety of Immigration Court data, including asylum data, the backlog, MPP, and more now updated through September 2021, use TRAC’s Immigration Court tools here:

https://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/

If you want to be sure to receive a notification whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

https://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1

Follow us on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/tracreports

or like us on Facebook:

https://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Syracuse University

601 E. Genesee Street

Syracuse, NY 13202-3117

315-443-3563

trac@syr.edu

https://trac.syr.edu

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.

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

Here’s some historical perspective. When the Refugee Act of 1980 was enacted, the INS took the position that the standard of proof for asylum was the same as the “traditional” standard for the pre-existing relief of withholding of deportation. That was a “clear probability,” of persecution, which means “more likely than not.”

Because this was a high standard that had been “over-rigorously applied” to deny almost all withholding cases (refugees from communism — Other Than Chinese — were about the only folks who had any chance of being granted withholding, and that was rare) the asylum grant rate remained very low for the first six years following enactment of the Refugee Act. In 1987, that grant rate was only approximately 11%.

In 1987, the Supreme Court decided INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987). (As the Acting General Counsel/Deputy General Counsel of INS, I had helped the Solicitor General prepare and articulate the Government’s position. My future Immigration Court friend and colleague, Judge Dana Leigh Marks, then known as Dana Marks Keener, argued for Ms. Cardoza-Fonseca. I sat at counsel’s table with the “SG’s Team” during the oral argument before the Court. Shortly thereafter, I left INS to go into private practice at Jones Day.)

To the surprise of many of us, the Supremes soundly rejected the INS position and ruled in favor of Ms. Cardoza-Fonseca. The Court said that a “well-founded fear” of persecution was intended to be a much more generous standard, significantly less than a probability and including a “10% chance” of persecution.

Thereafter, the BIA issued a precedent implementing the “well founded fear” standard as “significantly less than a probability” — an “objectively reasonable” fear of persecution — in Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 437 (BIA 1987). Mogharrabi also stood out as one of the very few BIA precedents up to that time actually granting, rather than denying asylum on appeal. (When I returned to Government service in 1995 as Chairman of the BIA, I was a “true believer” in making the as yet “unfulfilled promise of Cardoza and Mogharrabi” a reality! That’s still at the top of my “Due Process Forever Wish List!”)

In the immediate aftermath, while “parroting” the Cardoza and Mogharrabi generous standards, most Immigration Judges and BIA panels appeared to actually continue to apply the more restrictive “probability” or “more likely than not” standard. But, over time, the Circuit Courts of Appeals and sometimes even Board Members (most often in dissent) began “calling out” EOIR Judges for what appeared to be an intentional misapplication of the asylum standard.

A regulation change to provide a “rebuttable presumption of future persecution” arising out of past persecution also helped. That is, once the Article III Courts forced EOIR judges to actually apply, rather than ignore or disingenuously “work around,” the regulatory presumption. See generally, Matter of Chen, 20 I&N Dec. 16 (BIA 1989) (particularly the concurring opinion by Judge Michael J. Heilman) for the “Bush I Era” historical impetus for the past persecution regulations. Ironically, the BIA sometimes had trouble “following up” on the generous teachings of their own Chen precedent.

Additionally, Judge Marks and other trained asylum experts from outside the Government who joined the Immigration Court prior to 2001 began actually applying the correct standard to grant asylum. (By stark contrast, Sessions and Barr “stacked and packed” the BIA with some of the most virulent anti-asylum judges in America while appointing far too many individuals with no immigration or asylum expertise whatsoever to be Immigration Judges at the trial level. The idea was to “build the deportation railroad” 🚂 with the BIA and Immigration Court as “mere whistle stops,” at best.)

Consequently, over time, between 1987 and 2013, there was a slow but steady increase in asylum grant rates as Courts and some Immigration Judges and BIA Members pushed EOIR to finally “live up” to the more generous Cardoza/Mogharrabi standard. A number of those who helped this push for justice for asylum seekers are now members of our “Round Table of Former Immigration Judges!”🛡⚔️

The world certainly was a dangerous place for refugees in the years leading up to FY 2012, when asylum grants actually reached their “high water mark” of well over 50%. But, it has gotten even more dangerous over the past decade.

That, until recently, asylum grant rates had steadily declined since FY 2012 while conditions for refugees continued to worsen shows that the EOIR system is largely about politically driven enforcement manipulation rather than a test of reality or a fair, efficient, competent, and legally sound approach to asylum law.

The modest but welcome rise in asylum approval rates under Biden happened notwithstanding a BIA that continues to churn out unduly and intentionally restrictive precedents and to botch basic asylum decisions on a regular basis! It also occurred under an Attorney General who has largely “looked the other way” and exhibited indifference as the BIA (composed mostly of “holdover” Trump-era appointees or “survivors” of the Trump regime) continues to abuse asylum seekers.

Lawyers and applicants who have kept fighting for their rights in a system designed to railroad and demoralize them deserve much credit for the improved results and for constantly battling to expose the “Garland BIA’s” gross deficiencies to the Article III Circuit Courts. That’s what the “New Due Process Army” is all about!

Just think what the asylum grant rate might look like with a better BIA of independent expert judges who consistently provided positive precedents and guidance on asylum law and consistently enforced them against those Immigration Judges who have improperly and unethically created “Asylum Free Zones” in some jurisdictions!

Think of how many lives could be saved with better judges at the trial, and particularly the appellate, levels of EOIR! Backlogs and unnecessary litigation would also begin to decrease — without bogus and wasteful “enforcement gimmicks” like Garland’s “Dedicated Dockets” designed and implemented from above by disconnected, sometimes clueless, bureaucrats as a toxic example of backlog-building “Aimless Docket Reshuffling!”

Not rocket science! 🚀 Too bad nobody at Garland’s DOJ appears to care much about human lives and taxpayer dollars going down the drain on an unfair, backlogged, and stunningly dysfunctional asylum system at EOIR and on the Southern Border. ☹️

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-10-21

⚖️COURTSIDE ANALYSIS: A “QUICKIE LOOK” INSIDE THE NUMBERS OF “DEDICATED DOCKET” — Sometimes The Numbers Don’t Tell You Much, Particularly When They Come From EOIR

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Courtside Exclusive

August 20, 2021

TRAC IMMIGRATION just released the first statistical profile of the “Dedicated Asylum Docket” created by AG Garland and his subordinates without any coherent public explanation or plan in mind. Here they are:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/657/

Stats wonks can check them out, and do their own analyses. As usual, given the haphazard nature and often questionable reliability of Government immigration statistics, it’s impossible to draw definitive conclusions.

But, here are a few things that jump out for me.

No criteria. How do you set up a program that deals with life or death decision-making without having transparent criteria about who gets placed on it and why? Easy, you work for Merrick Garland’s DOJ!

CBP in charge of dockets. Since there are no known criteria, and EOIR seems to have gone belly-up as usual, CBP, a law enforcement branch of DHS, gets to decide who is on this “Dedicated Docket.” CBP, of course, has a questionable record of competence and many issues including allegations of racism in its ranks swirling around it. It also has no known expertise or competence in establishing court dockets. Plus, letting a law enforcement agency with interests often adverse to asylum applicants, whose parent agency is a party to all Immigration Court proceedings, control dockets raises obvious ethical and conflict of interest issues.

Individuals, families, or cases? In its usual confusing manner, EOIR presents its stats in terms of individuals assigned to a docket. But, most (not necessarily all) “family units” are heard as a single “case.” According to TRAC, 4886 “individuals” on the Dedicated Docket (“DD”) represents 1,700 “family units.” That’s approximately “three individuals per family unit.” So, to get the approximate number of actual cases on a particular judge’s DD, we have to divide by three. Therefore, the number 600 assigned to a particular judge on the DD would actually represent 200 cases that require individual merits hearings. Got that? Confusing? Of course!

Who is Judge Francisco R. Pietro, and why? The short answer is that Judge Pietro is a 2019 appointee of GOP “Acting” AG Matt Whitaker, assigned to the NYC Docket and is too recent to have any “asylum grant/deny” statistics in the TRAC System. Remarkably, not to mention inexplicably, Judge Pietro has been assigned approximately 22% of the current Dedicated Docket (“DD”), or 1086 of the 4886 individuals covered by the report. (The rest of the DD is divided, very unequally, among 31 other IJs).

Dividing by 3, per above, the 1086 individuals assigned to Judge P represent about 395 “actual cases.”

Now, EOIR currently demands that it’s “Assembly Line Worker/Judges” complete 700 widgets (aka, cases) per year. It also expects judges assigned to the DD to strive to complete cases in 300 days, that is 10 months.

So, completing 395 asylum cases in 10 months would only leave Judge P another 2 months to complete the other 305 cases necessary for him to make his “quota.” Something has to give here, particularly if Judge P, like the rest of us, wants to take vacations and Federal Holidays off, prepare his cases, and occasionally gets sick. Who knows, he might even need some updated asylum training, although practical aspects like that don’t appear to be part of the equation at today’s “numbers driven” EOIR.

And, let’s not forget that Judge P is a recent appointment. Recent appointees are likely to be less efficient and less inclined to grant asylum than experienced judges, according to some studies.

Therefore, to meet his quotas, keep his bureaucratic “handlers” at DOJ happy, and hang onto his job, Judge P might be left with two choices:

Cut corners big time (a traditional EOIR “built to fail” approach) which means denying lots of due process; or
Reassign part of his docket to other judges, which leads to “Aimless Docket Shuffling” and building backlog.

Theoretically, Judge P could also choose to hear asylum cases with the care required to provide due process and quality decisions, without worrying about targets and quotas. This would be a more plausible option if he were actually an independent judicial official rather than the employee of a political agency.

Also, don’t kid yourself about the “operational consequences” of assigning Judge P and others to a DD! Even assuming that he had zero cases on his docket before being assigned to the DD (highly unlikely), his unavailability for the “general docket” will place extra burdens on his judicial colleagues that will almost certainly promote more Aimless Docket Reshuffling and more backlog. This, of course, will be true for most of the other 31 judges assigned to the DD, to differing degrees, depending on their DD caseload (which ranges from 1 to 712 “individuals” for the “other 31”). “Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic” like this actually prevents the crew from getting more passengers off in time to save lives.

Where are the lawyers coming from? The good news is that among the “top 10 DD Judges,” (comprising 79% of the DD), four are in NYC (2d Cir.), two in Newark (3d Cir.), one in San Diego (9th Cir.), one in SF (9th Cir.), one in LA (9th Cir.), and one in Boston (1st Cir.). There are active immigration bars, including pro bono bars, in all these locations. More over, none of these Circuits is notorious for systemically mistreating asylum seekers, and one, the 9th Cir., actually has some favorable case law, although probably less so since Trump’s far-right appointees have “rebalanced” that Circuit to the right.

Yet, it’s not clear from this statistical profile, nor has EOIR revealed, what, if any, agreements might be in place with local pro bono groups in these areas to achieve universal representation within a 300 day case-completion target, without disrupting the “regular” dockets. Nor is it shown how many of those 4886 individuals now on the DD already have lawyers. These are big unanswered questions.

Why Ecuador? Individuals from Ecuador make up over 40% of the DD, even though they comprise less than 10% of the “regular” (if there is such a thing) Immigration Court docket. Go figure!

How were these particular IJs and locations selected for the DD? No clue, which is disconcerting.

Other interesting information.

Here’s a chart that I constructed giving profiles of the “Top 10 DD Judges:”

DD Analysis

Overall, the majority (7) are recent GOP appointees from 2018-20. Of the seven with established asylum grant rates, two have grant rates significantly above the national average (Ling, Sagerman), two have grant rates significantly below the national average (Aina, Pope), and three (Auh, Sturia, Pressman) are relatively proximate to the national grant rate for the TRAC period (33.3). None sit within Circuits known for particular harshness to asylum seekers. None, to my limited knowledge, as far as stats are available, are members of the notorious “Asylum Deniers Club.”

So, we’ll see how it all plays out. Perhaps, over time, advocates will grow to “love and cherish” these DDs. More likely, they will eventually develop the same inconsistencies, inefficiencies, and maddening quirks that have accompanied almost all prior DOJ/EOIR “artificial gimmicks” intended to “speed up the treadmill” without meaningful advance input from experts of the private bar.

But, to me, it looks like the “same old” mismanaged, misguided, failing and flailing EOIR.

Should we expect better from the Biden Administration? You betcha! Will we get it? Probably not, without lots of litigation and hell-raising!

🇺🇸⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-19-21

🏴‍☠️TRUMP REGIME LEFT BEHIND AWFUL MESS 🤡 @ EOIR: BACKLOGS GREW EXPONENTIALLY, CASES TOOK LONGER TO COMPLETE, BUT MORE (LESS QUALIFIED) JUDGES WERE ON THE BENCH — Haste Makes Waste Gimmicks Created “Worst Of All Worlds!”

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Immigrants Facing Deportation Wait Twice as Long in FY 2021 Compared to FY 2020

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The latest available case-by-case Immigrant Court records show that immigration cases that were completed in the first four months of FY 2021 took nearly twice as long from beginning to end as cases completed in the first four months of FY 2020. Cases that were completed between the beginning of October 2020 and the end of January 2021 took, on average, 859 days compared to 436 days over the same period a year before. The duration was calculated as the number of days between the date the Notice to Appear was issued to the date of completion as recorded in the Immigration Court’s records.

The top ten Immigration Courts with the most case completions thus far in FY 2021 accounted for four out of every ten closures (42%). The Miami Immigration Court was the most active with 2,129 case closures. Completion times at the Miami Immigration Court have increased since November 2020, but were slightly lower than the national average at 832 average days. In November, the Miami court took on average 787 days. The Immigration Court in Los Angeles had the second highest number of case completions with 1,857 case closures, followed closely by San Francisco with 1,849. Baltimore and Dallas were in fourth and fifth place.

The longest disposition times were found in the Atlanta Immigration Court where it took on average 1,577 days to close a case. The Cleveland Immigration Court was close behind, taking an average of 1,573 days. The Arlington Immigration Court was in third place with completion times so far in FY 2021 averaging 1,535 days. Newark and Boston Immigration Courts were in fourth and fifth place. Cases completed by immigration judges in Atlanta, Cleveland, Arlington, and Newark all took, on average, longer than four years.

The full report is found at:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/639/

To examine a variety of Immigration Court data, including asylum data, the backlog, MPP, and more now updated through January 2021, use TRAC’s Immigration Court tools here:

https://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/

If you want to be sure to receive a notification whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

https://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1

Follow us on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/tracreports

or like us on Facebook:

https://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Syracuse University

Suite 360, Newhouse II

Syracuse, NY 13244-2100

315-443-3563

trac@syr.edu

https://trac.syr.edu

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.

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

Maliciously incompetent management fuels “Aimless Docket Reshuffling!”

It’s what happens when you combine White Nationalism, maliciously incompetent management, bad judging, and endless “enforcement-only” gimmicks that tried to cut corners and short-circuit justice — “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) to the max. What has been absent from this system for years is leadership that understands immigration, views migrants as humans, and is committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices.

Pretty much what AILA pointed out in today’s report (policy brief).

🎇🧨💣BLOCKBUSTER NEW REPORT MAKES COMPELLING CASE FOR IMMEDIATE END TO EOIR CLOWN SHOW! 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ — Lays Out Blueprint For Restoring Due Process, Enhancing Justice In America’s Most Dysfunctional, Unfair, and Abusive “Courts!”

The system can’t improve without better personnel — not necessarily more — just better qualified to get the job done in a fair and timely manner consistent with due process and human dignity!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-12-21

DUH OF DA DAY: White Nationalist Agenda, Anti-Asylum Gimmicks, Grotesque Mal-Administration Leads To Longer Waiting Times @ Disastrously Dysfunctional EOIR 🤮 — Biden-Harris Administration Must End America’s Disgraceful Star Chambers ⚰️!

Star Chamber Justice — “Justice”
Star Chamber
Style

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Immigration Court Case Completion Times Jump as Delays Lengthen

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Not surprisingly, Immigration Court closures and delays in hearings for courts that are conducting hearings have drastically reduced the number of completed cases for the first two months of this fiscal year as compared with prior years at the same time.

New cases continue to drastically outpace case completions. In October and November 2020, the Immigration Courts received 29,758 new filings. This is fewer filings than usual, but still almost twice the 15,990 cases they completed.

As a result, the court’s active backlog at the end of November 2020 reached 1,281,586. This is up 18,821 cases in just the last two months. Adding to the court’s workload are not only new filings, but previously closed cases that have been reopened, remanded for reconsideration, or otherwise placed back on the court’s docket.

Disposition times for closed cases have also shot up this year. Cases disposed of in FY 2020 took on average 460 days. During the first two months of FY 2021, the courts disposed of a much smaller number of cases, but the disposition times were much longer at an average of 755 days—or 64 percent longer. The longest disposition times were found in the Cleveland Immigration Court where it took on average 1,617 days.

For the latest disposition times at each Immigration Court read the full report at:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/634/

To examine a variety of Immigration Court data, including asylum data, the backlog, MPP, and more now updated through November 2020, use TRAC’s Immigration Court tools here:

https://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/

If you want to be sure to receive a notification whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

https://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1

Follow us on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/tracreports

or like us on Facebook:

https://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Syracuse University

Suite 360, Newhouse II

Syracuse, NY 13244-2100

315-443-3563

trac@syr.edu

https://trac.syr.edu

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.

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

As mom used to say, “Haste makes waste.” Taking more time to decide cases would be perfectly defensible if it actually produced useful deliberation, thoughtful scholarship, and just and fair results. But, this currently is a system that must limit its intake while it develops the expertise, scholarship, analytical skills, quality control mechanisms, and best practices necessary for judicial efficiency that complies with due process and fundamental fairness (not to mention basic asylum law). That’s a “complete rebuild.”

Then, once that system is running well, it could be methodically and rationally expanded, if actually necessary. But, aimlessly building more assembly lines producing defective products and then ratcheting up the speed will, not surprisingly, produce nothing except more dangerous and defective products.

Not exactly rocket science that a bunch of hacks implementing racist policies, trying to speed up the assembly line, engaging in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” eradicating due process, discouraging fairness and deliberation, eliminating their own jurisdiction to control the dockets, and denying everything while mindlessly throwing more resources into a broken beyond belief “(non)system” at war with its own essential employees and those whom it (dis)serves would produce total chaos and dysfunction. Also, throw in lack of best technology and overt disregard for public health and safety.

And, while this is going on, an undisciplined, out of control, and for all practical purposes worse than useless ICE continues to pour new cases into the maelstrom at twice the rate it can get turn them out! As the late NY Met’s Manager Casey Stengel once said, “Can’t anyone here play this game?”

This is an ongoing and increasingly visible unmitigated national disgrace. It’s also an abuse of public funds and a betrayal of the public trust — fundamentals of sound government.

And, it won’t be “swept under the table” in the finest tradition of incoming Administrations. As I’ve said before, the Biden-Harris Administration either fixes EOIR🤡 immediately with some new faces with real expertise, or it “owns” it. And, the current White Nationalism infested atrocity and den of “malicious incompetence” at EOIR🤡 is not something an Administration striving to achieve equal justice and racial reconciliation should want to own!

Due Process Forever!

Hey hey, ho ho, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡 has got to go!

EOIR Clown Show Must Go T-Shirt — “EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept

PWS

12-22-20

EXPOSING THE KAKISTOCRACY 🏴‍☠️ — LATEST TRAC “DATA DIVE” SHOWS WHY THERE ARE LIES, DAMN LIES, & EOIR’S “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” ☠️🤮👎 – The Round Table & Other Immigration Experts, As Well As Some Article III Judges, Have Been Saying It Ever Since “Gonzo” Sessions’s Unethical & Dishonest Opinion In Castro-Tum: “TRAC finds that far from contributing to the backlog, administrative closure has helped reduce the backlog. [T]he EOIR significantly misrepresented the data it used to justify this rule.”

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

The Life and Death of Administrative Closure

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

In August 2020, the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) proposed a new rule that would effectively eliminate administrative closure as a docket management tool for Immigration Judges. The EOIR justified this proposed rule by claiming that administrative closure has “exacerbated both the extent of the existing backlog of immigration court cases and the difficulty in addressing that backlog in a fair and timely manner.” TRAC analyzed the EOIR’s claims as well as the historical data on administrative closure from 1986, and has just published its findings in a detailed report. The link to the report is below.

TRAC’s detailed analysis of the court records on administrative closure yields four key findings. First, administrative closure has been routinely used by Immigration Judges to manage their growing caseloads as well as manage the unresolved overlapping of jurisdictions between the EOIR and other immigration agencies. From FY 1986 to 2020, 6.1 percent (or 376,439) deportation and removal cases had been administratively closed during their lifespan. Each year, between 1 percent and 30 percent of cases are administratively closed, with high percentages of administrative closures during the Reagan and Bush Administrations in the late 1980s and early 1990s and during the Obama Administration between 2012 and 2016.

Second, TRAC finds that far from contributing to the backlog, administrative closure has helped reduce the backlog. If the 292,042 cases that are currently administratively closed and not yet recalendared were brought back onto the Court’s active docket, this would suddenly increase the Court’s active workload from its current backlog at the end of July 2020 of 1,233,307 cases to 1,525,349 cases. This would produce a 24 percent jump in the court’s already clogged hearing schedules, pushing the resolution of other backlogged cases off for many additional months if not years.

Third, data from the Immigration Courts show that immigrants who obtain administrative closure are likely to have followed legal requirements and obtain lawful status. When cases were administratively closed, recalendared, and decided, most immigrants met the legal standard to remain in the country lawfully. For example, for those cases in which the government was seeking removal orders, six out of ten (60.1%) immigrants met the high legal threshold of remaining in the country. The largest proportion of these had their cases terminated since the Court ultimately found there were no longer valid grounds to deport them. Just three out of ten (30.3%) immigrants were ultimately ordered removed.

Fourth, the EOIR significantly misrepresented the data it used to justify this rule. Specifically, the agency claims to show low numbers of case completions during the Obama Administration and high numbers of case completions during the Trump Administration. In reality, the data behind this argument artificially eliminates cases that were administratively closed. Its argument also fails to recognize that average annual case completions per Immigration Judge have actually declined from 737 closures per judge to 657 per judge during the past four years, not increased, perhaps due to the changes introduced by the current Administration.

Read the full report at:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/623/

TRAC’s free web query tools which track Immigration Court proceedings have also been updated through July 2020. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools and their latest update go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/

If you want to be sure to receive a notification whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

https://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1

Follow us on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/tracreports

or like us on Facebook:

https://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
315-443-3563
trac@syr.edu
https://trac.syr.edu

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.

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

“Significantly misrepresented” — That’s a euphamism for “blatantly lied.” Of course, that’s what the head of the regime does on life or death matters. So, I suppose we wouldn’t expect anything else from the “toadies on parade” filling out the kakistocracy.

Look, you don’t “jack” the backlog to at least twice its “pre-regime” level with twice the number of Immigration Judges without some pretty grotesque mismanagement, cover-ups, falsification of data, dishonesty, and denial of rights to migrants.

Moreover, TRAC specifically shows the “false narrative” peddled by the racists in the Trump regime that administrative closing is some type of “evasion” that is not in the public interest. As Judge Richard Leon would say “poppycock.” It’s exactly the opposite! TRAC finds that “data from the Immigration Courts show that immigrants who obtain administrative closure are likely to have followed legal requirements and obtain lawful status.”

Administrative closure is a sane, reasonable, well-established, entirely legal, and absolutely necessary procedure. Gee whiz, one of the original proponents of administrative closure and its aggressive use as a docket management tool was the late first Chief Immigration Judge William R. Robie. Chief Judge Robie was a Republican appointee during the Reagan Administration. He also was a devotee of fundamental fairness and judicial efficiency. He had led a number of professional organizations and was known and respected in the DC Legal Community as a “guru of timeliness and efficient legal administration.”

What’s abusive are the illegal tactics, lies, and mismanagement at both DOJ and DHS that have been concocted to justify racist, White Nationalist policies that do not serve the public interest!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-10-20

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

Here’s an Addendum from Margaret Stock:

From: Margaret Stock [mailto:MStock@CASCADIALAWALASKA.COM]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2020 10:17 AM
To: Benson, Lenni B.
Cc: Immprof (immprof@lists.ucla.edu)
Subject: Re: [immprof] FW: The Life and Death of Administrative Closure

The Administration is most definitely putting out misleading information (as usual). Example: one often overlooked “administrative closure” group has been members of the US military who got tossed into removal proceedings for one reason or another (usually because of a referred asylum case or failure to file an I751 or denial of an I751 by USCIS). They almost always naturalize after being put into proceedings, then reopen and terminate. Lately, they’ve had to hire a lawyer to keep showing up at master calendar hearings, usually for a couple of years. The judges can’t hear the case because they’ve got naturalization applications pending. But the judges have to keep wasting docket time on them because there’s no such thing as admin closure anymore. It’s foolish and costly for the service members.

Sent from my iPhone

🏴‍☠️🤡KAKISTOCRACY KORNER: Experienced Immigration Judges Flee America’s Star Chambers At Record Numbers As Trump Regime’s Malicious Incompetence Triples Backlog With Twice The Number Of Judges On Bench, According To Latest TRAC Report!

🏴‍☠️🤡KAKISTOCRACY KORNER: Experienced Immigration Judges Flee America’s Star Chambers At Record Numbers As Trump Regime’s Malicious Incompetence Triples Backlog With Twice The Number Of Judges On Bench, According To Latest TRAC Report!

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

More Immigration Judges Leaving the Bench

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The latest judge-by-judge data from the Immigration Courts indicate that more judges are resigning and retiring. Turnover is the highest since records began in FY 1997 over two decades ago. These results are based on detailed records obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) which administers the Courts.

During FY 2019 a record number of 35 judges left the bench. This is up from the previous record set in FY 2017 when 20 judges left the bench, and 27 judges left in FY 2018.

With elevated hiring plus the record number of judges leaving the bench more cases are being heard by judges with quite limited experience as immigration judges.

Currently one of every three (32%) judges have only held their position since FY 2019. Half (48%) of the judges serving today were appointed in the last two and a half years. And nearly two-thirds (64%) were appointed since FY 2017.

While the Court is losing many of its most experienced judges, the backlog of cases continues to balloon. It is now almost three times the level when President Trump assumed office.

Update on Disappearing Immigration Court Records

Records continue to disappear in the latest data release for updated court records through the end of June 2020. The report provides the latest statement from EOIR Chief Management Officer Kate Sheehey about this matter.

To read the full report on Immigration Judges leaving the bench as well as the Sheehey statement, go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/617/

TRAC’s free web query tools which track Immigration Court proceedings have also been updated through June 2020. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools and their latest update go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/

If you want to be sure to receive a notification whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

https://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1

Follow us on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/tracreports

or like us on Facebook:

https://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
315-443-3563
trac@syr.edu
https://trac.syr.edu

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.

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

Look folks, I’m not disputing that Susan B. Long and David Burnham of TRAC are smart people. I’m even willing to speculate that they are smarter than most of the folks still in so-called public service (that largely isn’t any more) in all three branches of our failing Government.

But, are they really that much smarter than Supreme Court Justices, Article III Federal Judges, and Legislators who have let this grotesquely unconstitutional, dysfunctional, and deadly Star Chamber masquerading as a “court system” right here on American soil unfold and continue its daily abuses right under their complicit noses? Or, do we have too many individuals in public office lacking both the human decency and moral courage to stand up against institutionalized racism, unnecessarily cruelty, corruption, and pure stupidity, all of which very clearly are prohibited by both the due process and equal protection clauses of our Constitution, not to mention the 13th and 15th Amendments. It’s not rocket science!

Enough with the Congressional and Court-enabled “Dred Scottification” of the other! That’s how we ended up with things like the “Chinese Exclusion Act” and “Jim Crow” and why we have an institutionalized racism problem now.

Instead of standing up for equal justice for all under the Constitution, the Supremes and Congress often have willingly been part of the problem — using the law knowingly and intentionally to undermine constitutionally required equal justice for all and an end to racism. And, we can see those same attitudes today, specifically in the Supremes’ ridiculously wrong, intellectually dishonest, and cowardly decisions “greenlighting” various parts of White Nationalist Stephen Miller’s bogus program of dehumanizing asylum seekers and immigrants of color. This is not acceptable performance from Justices of our highest Court!

We need better, more courageous, and more intellectually honest public officers in all three branches who are willing to stand up for individual rights, human lives, and the common good over bogus right wing legal doctrines and inhumanity cloaked in legal gobbledygook. It won’t happen overnight. But, a better America starts with throwing a totally corrupt, cruel, and maliciously incompetent President and his GOP enablers out of every public office at every level of government this November.

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

07-14-20

EYORE’S KAKISTOCRACY KORNER: EOIR Director Shoots Messenger, But Fails To Address Serious Systemic Inaccuracies in Statistics & Record Keeping!

EOIR Director McHenry Replies To TRAC’s Letters But Ignores Agency’s Data Troubles

Despite TRAC’s appeals to the EOIR, Immigration Court records continue to disappear each month. This is unfortunately still the case with EOIR’s latest data release. Yesterday, June 15, we finally received a letter from EOIR Director James McHenry in response. But instead of addressing the obvious serious data management problems at EOIR, Director McHenry denied there were any problems and attacked TRAC’s motives for spreading what he claims are falsehoods about the agency.

Background

TRAC initially reported 1,507 missing applications for relief in our October 2019 report, which grew to 3,799 missing applications the following month. We wrote EOIR Director James McHenry providing a copy of the 1,507 missing applications asking for answers on why these records were missing from their files. We wrote again when the number of missing applications more than doubled the following month. Not only did we provide substantive evidence of the issues, we also repeatedly reassured the administration that we stood ready to work with them to fully resolve the underlying issues. These letters were met with silence. Not only have these particular cases disappeared entirely, they have not been restored in any subsequent data releases including the latest data TRAC received last week.

Alarmingly, the data from EOIR for April 2020 on asylum and other applications for relief to the Immigration Courts was missing an even larger

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/614/ Page 1 of 4

EOIR Director McHenry Replies To TRAC’s Letters But Ignores Agency Data Troubles 6/16/20, 4:29 PM

number of records—so large, in fact, that TRAC ceased publishing this information on our website and recommended the public be cautious in relying on EOIR asylum statistics until these problems were corrected. TRAC published those findings on June 3, 2020.

The Good and The Bad: EOIR’s Latest Data Release

Late on Friday, June 5, after normal business hours, EOIR sent a brief email acknowledging that data the agency had provided TRAC was, as TRAC had reported two days earlier, not usable. The problem was attributed to a “scripting error”—that is, problems made in the computer code that the EOIR’s Office of Information Technology had developed. A “corrected” version of the data was posted, shortly followed by EOIR’s regular monthly release with updated data through May 2020.

The good news is that TRAC has confirmed that the large number of asylum and other applications that had disappeared from the April shipment were now included in the May release. The bad news is that EOIR did not fix the underlying problem. Yet again, thousands of records that had been present in the April shipment were now missing. And the disappearing records from prior months, including the 1,507 missing asylum and other application for relief that TRAC first wrote about back last fall, continued to be missing from this latest release.

Even setting aside the issue of missing records, the persisting problem of computer processing malfunctions remains very troubling. Fixing one computer processing glitch after another does not address this larger systemic problem. Why do basic programming errors that lead to countless additional data errors keep reoccurring month after month in data and reports the agency publishes? Why aren’t these caught earlier and corrected before any data and statistics are released? The agency has yet

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/614/ Page 2 of 4

EOIR Director McHenry Replies To TRAC’s Letters But Ignores Agency Data Troubles 6/16/20, 4:29 PM

to address these questions.

EOIR Director McHenry Responds

At the same time we published our June 3 report, we wrote a third letter to EOIR Director McHenry expressing our concern and seeking a commitment from him to take the steps needed to address these problems. We assured Director McHenry again that we would be more than happy to work cooperatively with the agency to help them better ensure that going forward the public is provided with more accurate and reliable data about the Immigration Court’s operations.

This Monday we received a response from Director McHenry. His response is available here. Rather than addressing the real issues concerning the agency’s continuing data management problems, Director McHenry attacked our motives for alleging that the agency had any problems and further claimed that TRAC knew our statements to be untrue but had made them anyway.

Director McHenry also falsely alleged that TRAC wanted “to obtain all sensitive, identifying information” in EOIR data about particular immigrants in court proceedings. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Our requests have been limited to anonymized data. Indeed, EOIR publicly posts the monthly data TRAC receives on its own website.

In fact, due to the agency’s computer management problems, in March 2020 the agency posted data online which the agency itself intended to withhold. It was TRAC—not the EOIR—who uncovered this mistake and alerted agency officials.

Why did the EOIR post data online that it intended to withhold? Again it was the same underlying problem: deficiencies in EOIR data management

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/614/ Page 3 of 4

EOIR Director McHenry Replies To TRAC’s Letters But Ignores Agency Data Troubles 6/16/20, 4:29 PM

processes mistakenly allowed the public posting of information on tens of thousands of immigrants the agency had sought to redact. Once again basic checks were not in place to verify that their programs had functioned properly so no one at the agency had caught these mistakes before the data was distributed.

What Comes Next?

TRAC has been asked to refer any future issues to EOIR Chief Management Officer Kate Sheehey. TRAC’s co-director had an initial phone conversation with her last Friday, June 12. TRAC asked Director Sheehey to find out why month after month more records keep permanently disappearing from EOIR’s data. She has promised to look into this and provide answers. TRAC will continue to keep the public informed on any future developments.

*********

Director

Susan B. Long

Co-Director, TRAC and

Associate Professor

Martin J. Whitman School of Management Syracuse University

721 University Avenue

Syracuse, New York 13244

David Burnham

Co-Director, TRAC and

Associate Research Professor

S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications Syracuse University

215 University Place

Syracuse, New York 13244

Dear Professors Long and Burnham:

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of Director

5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600 Falls Church, Virginia 22041

June 12, 2020

This letter responds to your letter dated June 3, 2020, and to your previous letters dated November 4, 2019, and December 18, 2019, respectively.

As you are aware, EOIR has committed to an unprecedented data transparency initiative over the past two years, including the monthly posting of data from its Case Access System for EOIR (CASE) database pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). As you are also aware, EOIR does not delete data from CASE in the sense that you have repeatedly alleged. As EOIR has explained to you previously, data that you allege has been “deleted” actually reflects either real-time updates to information in CASE, technological errors in the extraction and posting of the data which have been corrected, or data that was appropriately withheld from disclosure pursuant to FOIA.

Because you know that EOIR does not delete data, I can only speculate as to your motives for continuing to publicly accuse EOIR’s hardworking and conscientious career personnel in the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ), the Office of Information Technology (OIT), and the FOIA Unit of malfeasance. Moreover, your apparent desire to obtain all sensitive, identifying information in CASE related to specific cases of aliens in immigration proceedings—including aliens with particular types of

Letter to Professors Susan B. Long and David Burnham Page 2

claims subject to protection from disclosure under FOIA—is perplexing. Nevertheless, regardless of your motivation, your inflammatory and inaccurate accusations do nothing to advance our mutual goals of improving the availability of reliable data to inform decision-making in the immigration sphere.

In light of your continued disparagement of the employees within OCIJ, OIT, and the FOIA Unit, I have asked Chief Management Officer Kate Sheehey to address any future issues that you raise with the monthly data release under FOIA. Please direct any future comments or inquiries to her.

cc: Kate Sheehey, Chief Management Officer

Sincerely,

JAMES MCHENRY

Digitally signed by JAMES MCHENRY

Date: 2020.06.12 16:43:24 -04’00’

James R. McHenry III Director

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

While nobody is infallible, TRAC is a well-respected independent source of statistics and nonpartisan analysis.

EOIR, on the other hand, is a highly partisan mismanaged charade of a court system dedicated to carrying out the DOJ’s anti-asylum, anti-immigrant agenda.

Recently, the DOJ’s own independent watchdog exposed the incompetent handling of the funding for court interpreters that directly diminished due process for those appearing before EOIR. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/06/10/%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%a4%a1%f0%9f%a5%b5kakistocracy-korner-w-eyore-tal-kopan-sf-chron-tanvi-misra-roll-call-report-on-our-anti-heros-latest-adventures-in-fraud-waste-abuse-a/

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/06/10/naij-speaks-out-on-fraud-waste-abuse-eoir-the-mismanagement-uncovered-by-oig-in-yesterdays-report-is-only-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-of-persistent-systemic-and-structural-failures/

Additionally, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus has written to McHenry expressing grave concerns about EOIR’s data management practices (or lack thereof). https://chc.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressional-hispanic-caucus-demands-trump-administration-explain

Who ya gonna believe? No contest!

This also provides insights into why, after two decades of failed efforts and squandered taxpayer funds, EOIR failed to deliver on a functional nationwide e-filing system. It also helps explain how the already overwhelming docket backlog has more than doubled even with nearly twice as many judges under the “malicious incompetence” of the Trump DOJ.

But, this “gang that can’t shoot straight” had time to develop ridiculously unneeded and counterproductive “Immigration Judge Dashboards” that nobody except politicos wanted, to keep the pressure on judges to deny due process and deny asylum. They also had time to set up a totally unneeded “Office of Policy” under the Director and to disembowel the Office of Legal Assistance Programs, one of the few functional parts of EOIR “management” whose projects once long ago actually helped to reduce backlogs while promoting due process. The Office of Policy duplicates functions that formerly were adequately performed by the Office of General Counsel.

EOIR has always had a problem of too many positions and too much funding devoted to Headquarters in Falls Church rather than to the courts in the field. But, under the Trump kakistocracy the problem has become an epidemic. EOIR management has been used to exert improper political control over the quasi-judicial process and to interfere in independent decision making and due process. But, it’s been totally “MIA” in providing the basic apolitical professional administrative services needed by the judges and the public they are supposed to be serving (but aren’t right now under an Administration that has open contempt for due process, service to the public, and the immigrant community).

An independent Article I Court is the only solution! Competent administrative services dedicated to promoting full due process with efficiency and top notch public service is a prerequisite for any type of meaningful backlog reduction. As long as “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and mismanagement rule, the backlog will continue to grow by leaps and bounds. But, because of chronically unreliable EOIR statistics and record keeping, we might never know the true extent of the court backlog. You can bet, however, that’s it’s now considerably more than the previously reported 1.4 million “on docket plus waiting to be recalendared” mess.

Maybe, rather than “shooting the messengers,” EOIR should enlist the assistance of true experts and statisticians to help fix the current broken system!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-17-20

KAKISTOCRACY KORNER: FRAUD, WASTE, & ABUSE UNDER THE EOIR BIG TOP 🤡🎪🤹‍♂️ — TRAC DECLARES EOIR’S BOGUS STATISTICS TO BE NATIONAL DISASTER! ☠️— “The EOIR’s apparent reckless deletion of potentially irretrievable court records raises urgent concerns that without immediate intervention the agency’s sloppy data management practices could undermine its ability to manage itself, thwart external efforts at oversight, and leave the public in the dark about essential government activities.”🤮 — WHERE’S THE OVERSIGHT? WHERE’S THE ACCOUNTABILITY?

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/611/

EOIR’s Data Release on Asylum So Deficient Public Should Not Rely on Accuracy of Court Records

TRAC has concluded that the data updated through April 2020 it has just received on asylum and other applications for relief to the Immigration Courts are too unreliable to be meaningful or to warrant publication. We are therefore discontinuing updating our popular Immigration Court Asylum Decisions app, and will take other steps to highlight this problem[1]. We also wish to alert the public that any statistics EOIR has recently published on this topic may be equally suspect, as will be any future reports the agency publishes until these major data deficiencies are explained and rectified[2].

The EOIR’s apparent reckless deletion of potentially irretrievable court records raises urgent concerns that without immediate intervention the agency’s sloppy data management practices could undermine its ability to manage itself, thwart external efforts at oversight, and leave the public in the dark about essential government activities. Left unaddressed, the number of deleted records will compound each month and could trigger an expensive data crisis at the agency. And here the missing records are the actual applications for asylum, and how the court is handling them. This is a subject on which there is widespread public interest and concern.

EOIR Data Irregularities Approaching Point of No Return

Despite TRAC’s appeals to the EOIR, Immigration Court records continue to disappear each month. TRAC initially reported 1,507 missing applications for relief in our October 2019 report, which grew to 3,799 missing applications the following month. We wrote EOIR Director James McHenry providing a copy of the 1,507 missing applications asking for answers on why these records were missing from their files. We wrote again when the number of missing applications more than doubled the following month. These letters were met with silence. Not only have these cases disappeared entirely, they have not been restored in any subsequent data releases and the number of missing relief applications continue to grow. (See the final section for a short explanation of TRAC’s methodology.)

Alarmingly, the number of relief applications that were present in the March 2020 data release but were missing in the April release jumped to 68,282. This is just the number of records that disappeared over a single month. It does not include the ever growing number of applications that had previously disappeared month-by-month. As was true in past months, roughly four out of five of the records in the March 2020 release that disappeared from April’s release concerned applications on which the court had rendered its decision, including many cases in which the immigration judge had granted asylum as well as other forms of relief.

To put that into perspective, the number of missing cases just last month is more than the 63,734 asylum applications received by the Immigration Courts during all of FY 2015. If these applications are missing because they have been deleted from the Court’s own master files, the magnitude of the task of restoring just this single month’s destruction—assuming this is even possible—is enormous. To go back and restore the cumulative number of relief applications that went missing during previous months will obviously be even greater.

In fact, so many asylum decisions were dropped from EOIR’s April release that the cumulative number of asylum decisions went down, not up, despite asylum decisions continuing to be made. The volume of disappearing records has reached a scale that little faith can be placed in the factual accuracy of reports published by the EOIR based on its data.

The EOIR’s escalating data problems should raise dire concerns for Congress, policymakers and the public who routinely put their faith in federal agencies to provide complete and accurate information about their work. Indeed, the management of the court system itself, including the quota system recently imposed on immigration judges, presupposes the accuracy of the court’s own records. It is deeply worrisome that the EOIR and the Department of Justice appear unconcerned with ensuring that their own records are accurate and uncommitted to providing the public with accurate and reliable data about the Court’s operations.

TRAC Urges EOIR to Take Immediate Action

To date, the EOIR has not responded to TRAC’s requests for an explanation of these disappearances, nor has the EOIR responded to TRAC’s FOIA requests for records that would shed light on this matter.

Therefore, TRAC has written a third letter to Director McHenry reporting our findings of 68,282 new disappearances and we are again seeking a commitment from him to take the steps needed to address the problem. More urgently, we are asking that the EOIR immediately preserve—rather than destroy—all back-up tapes or other media in the hopes that records apparently improperly deleted from the Court’s master files might be restored. We assured Director McHenry that we would be more than happy to work cooperatively with the agency to help them better ensure that going forward the public is provided with more accurate and reliable data about the Immigration Court’s operations.

How EOIR’s Data Mismanagement Impacts TRAC’s Immigration Court Tools

TRAC’s mission is to provide the public with accurate, reliable, unbiased, and timely data on the operations of the federal government, and to ensure that the public is informed about changes that impact our data.

The EOIR’s disappearing records fall under the data related to applications for relief. The record on the existence of the court case itself is present, but for a growing number of these cases there now is no record that the immigrant ever applied for relief, or the court’s decision on that application. One of the key moments in the life of the case—including applications for asylum—is missing entirely. As a direct consequence TRAC does not have the information needed to provide reliable or meaningful updates on the court’s handling of applications for asylum and must therefore discontinue updating its asylum decision app.

While each of the other files in EOIR’s monthly data releases also have the same problem of records disappearing, the magnitude of these disappearances has not reached the levels seen with applications for relief. While still worrisome, these levels have not yet climbed to where we believe we can no longer use the information we receive. Thus, we are continuing to update the rest of our other Immigration Court apps. We continue to closely monitor the situation, while we urge EOIR to explain why records keep disappearing. We further continue to ask the agency to take the steps needed to rectify the situation.

TRAC will continue to retain all previous and future EOIR data shipments for research purposes.

How did TRAC Identify the EOIR’s Data Irregularities?

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) oversees the nationwide Immigration Court system, including more than 60 physical Immigration Court locations (as well as many more remote hearing locations including teleconference sites and ad hoc “tent” courts), hundreds of Immigration Judges, and millions of immigration cases that pass through the court system. The EOIR records information on each case and tracks various proceedings, filings, hearings and other aspects of each case in a large database. This database is central to the Court’s ability to manage its workload, prepare and publish reports for the public, and respond to queries from Congress about its operations. It is also used in implementing new practices, including the recent decision to impose new evaluation criteria for Immigration Judges.

As a result of TRAC’s ongoing FOIA requests, the EOIR releases a large batch of anonymized Immigration Court data each month that provides a snapshot of a great deal of the information recorded in this database on the handling of each case. In short, TRAC does not create data on the EOIR; rather, TRAC’s uses the EOIR’s own data. This data is the foundation for TRAC’s Immigration Court data tools which help ensure transparency and accountability for the American public.

TRAC used this data to precisely identify deleted records. While the information TRAC receives does not identify individuals, EOIR’s computer system assigns a unique computer sequence number to each case that identifies it. Because TRAC receives comprehensive data shipments from the EOIR each month that include these unique computer-assigned tracking numbers, TRAC can match each record received in the previous month with the same corresponding record in the following month’s release. Each release is also cumulative. That means it should include every record from the previous month plus every new record that has been added to the database over the course of the current month. As a rule, records should therefore never disappear[3].

When a record that was present is not included in the next month’s release, TRAC refers to these as missing or disappearing records. Because humans maintain most databases including EOIR’s, mistakes will occur. Therefore no database is ever perfect. So a few disappearing records might be expected. However, as is the situation here, concern is warranted whenever significant numbers of records disappear. Indeed, alarm bells should ring as the number of disappearing records grow. This situation means the data can no longer be trusted to reliably track the court’s proceedings.

Footnotes

[1] EOIR monthly releases consist of a series of tables covering different aspects of its workload. While each of these tables continue to have disappearing records each month, the magnitude of these missing records varies by table. For example, in the table that tracks each case before the court there were 228 cases present in March that disappeared from the April release, compared with 41,233 new cases that were added. While the problem of disappearing case records remains very troubling for the case table along with each of the other EOIR tables, TRAC believes that their magnitudes do not rise to the same level as the problem for applications for relief where the data now are so unreliable and misleading that they do not warrant the public placing any trust in them. At this time, we therefore are continuing to update our other Immigration Court apps while alerting the public to this continuing serious problem that affects the reliability of EOIR data releases more generally.

[2] For an example of a recent EOIR publication that may contain significant data errors, see the graph and table reporting total asylum applications through March 2020, which was generated using data from April 2020: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1106366/download.

[3] Even when a data entry error is made, the database has special codes to indicate that a record should be disregarded because it was a data entry error so that rarely is it necessary to actually delete records.

TRAC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit data research center affiliated with the Newhouse School of Public Communications and the Whitman School of Management, both at Syracuse University. For more information, to subscribe, or to donate, contact trac@syr.edu or call 315-443-3563.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of TRAC’s report at the link.

EOIR isn’t willing and able to do its only function: provide fair, impartial, and timely adjudications to asylum seekers and other migrants while following best judicial practices.

But they do have time to waste taxpayers’ money on nonsense like the chart at this link: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/1217001/download. This was obviously designed to further the Trump regime’s false narrative regarding the merits of asylum claims. While the chart is largely incomprehensible, misleading nonsense, what stands out is this:

At the end of an abusive process during which the law has been illegally skewed against asylum seekers and “judges,” most of whom are not experts in asylum law and who have never even represented an asylum seeker, are encouraged to deny meritorious claims for protection, against the odds, over 25% (12 of 47) of those who actually get through this biased dysfunctional mess still get asylum!

It’s reasonable to believe that under a fair system, with impartial decision makers who have expertise in asylum law, and without the interference of biased, overtly anti-asylum politicos like Sessions and Barr, asylum seekers would succeed the majority of the time, as they did before efforts by both the Obama and Trump Administrations to “ratchet down” asylum grants so that the EOIR system would serve DHS Enforcement as a “deterrent” to those seeking protection.

Obviously, the DOJ is afraid that under a fair, independent judicial system that actually employed judges who were experts in asylum law and who had real life experience representing asylum applicants, the majority of claims would be granted, thereby exposing the fraud, dishonesty, and misconduct involved in the present anti-asylum system.

It’s a national disgrace that is actually harming and sometimes killing those deserving of protection under our law.

Due Process Forever! Dishonest, Unethical, Incompetent, and Intentionally Biased “Courts” Never!

PWS

06-04-20

Fiscal Year	All Court Completions	Dismissed: No NTA Filed
Fiscal Year	All Court Completions	Number	Percent
2013	167,446	355	0.2%
2014	160,483	225	0.1%
2015	168,684	41	0.0%
2016	178,052	11	0.0%
2017	179,153	84	0.0%
2018	193,391	505	0.3%
2019	276,647	4,686	1.7%
2020	243,367	5,952	2.4%
2021	144,751	15,244	10.5%
2022*	284,446	47,330	16.6%

Court Hearing Location	All Court Completions	Dismissed: No NTA Filed		Rank: No NTA
Court Hearing Location	All Court Completions	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
All	284,446	47,330	17%
IAD designated Hearing Locations*	5,516	5,516	100%	3	1
Miami – Dedicated Docket – DD	9,492	7,700	81%	1	2
Boston – Dedicated Docket – DD	2,752	1,698	62%	6	3
Houston, Texas	7,518	4,064	54%	4	4
Miami, Florida	16,644	7,155	43%	2	5
El Paso – Dedicated Docket – DD	169	69	41%	48	6
Los Angeles – Dedicated Docket – DD	3,006	974	32%	10	7
New York – Dedicated Docket – DD	3,436	1,098	32%	8	8
Chicago, Illinois	5,006	1,292	26%	7	9
Denver – Dedicated Docket – DD	1,019	258	25%	32	10
Orlando, Florida	3,437	640	19%	19	11
Charlotte	6,057	979	16%	9	12
New York Varick	4,254	676	16%	17	13
Newark – Dedicated Docket – DD	1,854	290	16%	29	14
Atlanta Non-Detained Juvenile	421	65	15%	49	15
NYB – Dedicated Docket – DD	1,183	179	15%	33	16
MPP Brownsville Gateway International Bridge	848	126	15%	37	17
Houston – S. Gessner	6,179	914	15%	11	18
Leland Federal Building	3,241	477	15%	23	19
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania	5,284	748	14%	14	20
Santa Ana Immigration Court	6,257	874	14%	12	21
Chicago Non-Detained Juveniles	101	14	14%	65	22
New York City, New York	21,202	2,784	13%	5	23
Boston, Massachusetts	5,793	748	13%	14	24
New Orleans, Louisiana	5,139	647	13%	18	25
Arlington, Virginia	6,546	821	13%	13	26
Phoenix, Arizona	3,869	480	12%	22	27
San Juan, Puerto Rico	406	49	12%	52	28
Denver, Colorado	4,547	506	11%	20	29
San Francisco – Dedicated Docket – DD	1,437	159	11%	35	30
New York Broadway	6,593	708	11%	16	31
Sacramento Immigration Court	1,285	131	10%	36	32
Kansas City, Missouri	1,145	115	10%	41	33
Omaha, Nebraska	1,419	125	9%	38	34
San Diego, California	3,539	289	8%	30	35
Atlanta, Georgia	3,596	285	8%	31	36
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania	220	17	8%	61	37
San Diego – Dedicated Docket – DD	288	22	8%	60	38
El Paso, Texas	2,208	168	8%	34	39
Las Vegas, Nevada	1,622	119	7%	40	40
Detroit, Michigan	1,953	124	6%	39	41
Van Nuys Immigration Court	6,405	388	6%	24	42
Houston Greenspoint Park	5,738	338	6%	26	43
Buffalo, New York	1,439	82	6%	43	44
Cleveland, Ohio	5,557	316	6%	27	45
Laredo Immigration Court	443	25	6%	58	46
San Francisco, California	9,277	502	5%	21	47
Mia Non-Detained Juveniles	536	29	5%	53	48
Newark, New Jersey	6,568	345	5%	25	49
San Francisco Non-Detained Juveniles	226	11	5%	68	50
Honolulu, Hawaii	278	13	5%	66	51
MPP Court El Paso	604	27	4%	55	52
Seattle – Dedicated Docket – DD	588	26	4%	56	53
Harlingen, Texas	1,811	78	4%	46	54
Portland, Oregon	1,281	54	4%	51	55
MPP Laredo,texas – Port of Entry	143	6	4%	72	56
Salt Lake City, Utah	1,949	80	4%	44	57
Tucson, Arizona	791	29	4%	53	58
MPP Court San Ysidro Port	195	7	4%	71	59
Charlotte Juvenile	477	17	4%	61	60
Reno, Nevada	330	11	3%	68	61
Memphis, Tennessee	3,837	114	3%	42	62
Hartford Juvenile	144	4	3%	73	63
Los Angeles – North Los Angeles Street	3,253	78	2%	46	64
Los Angeles, California	12,702	304	2%	28	65
Hartford, Connecticut	2,596	60	2%	50	66
Bloomington	3,577	79	2%	45	67
Imperial, California	497	9	2%	70	68
Bloomington Juvenile	177	3	2%	77	69
Arlington Juvenile	950	16	2%	64	70
Boston Unaccompanied Juvenile	817	13	2%	66	71
Detroit – Dedicated Docket – DD	200	3	2%	77	72
Memphis Juvenile	288	4	1%	73	73
Philadelphia Juvenile	375	4	1%	73	74
San Antonio, Texas	3,015	26	1%	56	75
Florence, Arizona	270	2	1%	79	76
Dallas, Texas	3,667	23	1%	59	77
New Orleans Juvenile	166	1	1%	81	78
Seattle, Washington	3,170	17	1%	61	79
Baltimore, Maryland	2,772	4	0%	73	80
Hyattsville Immigration Court	1,939	2	0%	79	81
Louisville, Kentucky	1,110	1	0%	81	82
Pearsall, Texas – Detention Facility	1,505	0	0%	none	none
Winn Correctional Facility	1,342	0	0%	none	none
Port Isabel Service Processing Center	1,324	0	0%	none	none
San Francisco Annex	1,017	0	0%	none	none
Stewart Detention Center – Lumpkin Georgia – LGD	866	0	0%	none	none
Conroe Immigration Court	754	0	0%	none	none
Baltimore, Maryland Juvenile	737	0	0%	none	none
Aurora Immigration Court	676	0	0%	none	none
San Antonio Satellite Office	654	0	0%	none	none
Boise, Idaho	575	0	0%	none	none
Moshannon Valley Correctional Facility	574	0	0%	none	none
Stewart Immigration Court	569	0	0%	none	none
T. Don Hutto Residential	527	0	0%	none	none
Jackson Parish	496	0	0%	none	none
Krome North Service Processing Center	474	0	0%	none	none
Prairieland Detention Center	470	0	0%	none	none
Imperial Detained	462	0	0%	none	none
Atlanta Non-Detained	417	0	0%	none	none
Otay Mesa Detention Center	407	0	0%	none	none
Chicago Detained	406	0	0%	none	none
Laredo, Texas – Detention Facility	404	0	0%	none	none
Lasalle Detention Facility	390	0	0%	none	none
Northwest Detention Center	382	0	0%	none	none
Eloy INS Detention Center	381	0	0%	none	none
Polk County Detention Facility	377	0	0%	none	none
El Paso Service Processing Center	372	0	0%	none	none
Otero County Processing Center	350	0	0%	none	none
Southwest Key	348	0	0%	none	none
Bluebonnet Detention Center	344	0	0%	none	none
Cleveland Juvenile	340	0	0%	none	none
Rio Grande Detention Center	319	0	0%	none	none
Denver Family Unit	282	0	0%	none	none
DHS-Litigation Unit/Oakdale	259	0	0%	none	none
Caroline Detention Facility	248	0	0%	none	none
Immigration Court	247	0	0%	none	none
Denver – Juvenile	245	0	0%	none	none
Houston Service Processing Center	240	0	0%	none	none
La Palma Eloy	237	0	0%	none	none
Batavia Service Processing Center	228	0	0%	none	none
Karnes County Correction Center	224	0	0%	none	none
Mcfarland-Mcm For Males	224	0	0%	none	none
River Correctional Facility	221	0	0%	none	none
Dilley – Stfrc	217	0	0%	none	none
Boston Detained	215	0	0%	none	none
Broward Transitional Center	202	0	0%	none	none
San Antonio Non-Detained Juvenile	182	0	0%	none	none
La Palma	179	0	0%	none	none
Seattle Non-Detained Juveniles	177	0	0%	none	none
Louisville Juvenile	175	0	0%	none	none
Orange County Correctional Facility	173	0	0%	none	none
Cibola County Correctional Center	161	0	0%	none	none
South Louisiana Correctional Center	161	0	0%	none	none
Richwood Correctional Center	158	0	0%	none	none
Nye County	150	0	0%	none	none
Kansas City Immigration Court – Detained	148	0	0%	none	none
San Diego Non-Detained Juvenile	142	0	0%	none	none
Bloomington Detained	137	0	0%	none	none
Desert View	131	0	0%	none	none
Giles W. Dalby Correctional Institution	122	0	0%	none	none
Joe Corley Detention Facility	116	0	0%	none	none
Texas DOC- Huntsville	112	0	0%	none	none
Torrance County Detention Facility	109	0	0%	none	none
Calhoun County Jail	107	0	0%	none	none

Outcome on Asylum Cases	Number	Percent**
IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases
Asylum Granted by IJ	249,413	26%
Other Relief, etc.	236,889	24%
Removal Order	403,252	42%
Voluntary Departure Order	77,998	8%
Total IJ Asylum Completions	967,552	100%
USCIS + IJ Outcome on Asylum Cases
Asylum Granted by USCIS+IJ	599,772	46%
Other Relief, etc by IJ	236,889	18%
Removal Order by IJ	403,252	31%
Voluntary Departure Order by IJ	77,998	6%
USCIS + IJ Asylum Completions	1,317,911	100%

TRAC reports:

DHS Fails to File Paperwork Leading to Large Numbers of Dismissals

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

TRAC Immigration reports:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Jasmine Aguilera reports for Time:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Completed Asylum Cases and Outcomes

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Courtside Exclusive

August 20, 2021

🇺🇸⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Hey hey, ho ho, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡 has got to go!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

More Immigration Judges Leaving the Bench

Update on Disappearing Immigration Court Records

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Dishonest, Unethical, Incompetent, and Intentionally Biased “Courts” Never!

Related posts: