Some have even called the slowdown from the backlog “de facto amnesty.”
“We believe it is absolutely inconsistent to apply quotas and deadlines on judges who are supposed to exercise independent decision-making authority,” Tabaddor said.
“The parties that appear before the courts will be wondering if the judge is issuing the decision because she is trying to meet a deadline or quota or is she really applying her impartial adjudicative powers,” she added.
. . . .
Faster decision-making could cut the backlog, but it also has many worried about fairness.
The pressure for speed means immigrants would have to move quickly to find an attorney. Without an attorney, the likelihood of deportation increases. Nationally, about 58 percent of immigrants are represented by attorneys, according to Syracuse’s research center. But in Texas, only about a third of the immigrants have legal representation.
Paul Schmidt, a retired immigration judge who served as chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals for immigration courts for six years, says he saw decisions rendered quickly and without proper legal analysis, leaving it necessary for many cases to be sent back to the immigration court for what he called “a redo.”
“Due process isn’t making widgets,” Schmidt said. “Compare this to what happens in regular courts. No other court system operates this way. Yet the issues in immigration court are life and death,” he said, referring to asylum cases.
Schmidt said there are good judges who take time with cases, which is often needed in asylum pleas from immigrants from countries at war or known for persecution of certain groups.
But he also said there were “some not-very-good judges” with high productivity.
Ramping up the production line, Schmidt said, will waste time.
“You will end up with more do-overs. Some people are going to be railroaded out of the country without fairness and due process,” Schmidt said.
. . . .
“It doesn’t make any sense to squeeze them,” said Huyen Pham, a professor at Texas A&M University School of Law in Fort Worth. “When you see a lot more enforcement, it means the immigration court will see a lot more people coming through.”
Lawyers and law school professors say the faster pace of deportation proceedings by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spells more trouble ahead. Immigration courts don’t have electronic filing processes for most of the system. Many judges must share the same clerk.
For decades, the nation’s immigration courts have served as a lynchpin in a complex system now under intense scrutiny. Immigration has become a signature issue for the Trump administration.
Five years ago, the backlog was about 344,000 cases — about half today’s amount. It grew, in part, with a rise in Central Americans coming across the border in the past few years. Most were given the opportunity to argue before an immigration judge about why they should stay in the U.S.
This isn’t the first time the judges have faced an administration that wants them to change priorities. President Barack Obama ordered that the cases of Central American unaccompanied children to be moved to the top of docket.
“Our dockets have been used as a political tool regardless of which administration is in power and this constant docket reshuffling, constant reprioritization of cases has only increased the backlog,” Tabaddor said.
The quota edict was followed by a memo to federal prosecutors in the criminal courts with jurisdiction over border areas to issue more misdemeanor charges against immigrants entering the country unlawfully. Sessions’ memo instructs prosecutors “to the extent practicable” to issue the misdemeanor charges for improper entry. On Wednesday, Sessions is scheduled to be in Las Cruces, New Mexico, to speak on immigration enforcement at a border sheriffs’ meeting.
**********************************************
Judge Ashley Tabaddor, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ” — for the record, I’m a retired member of the NAIJ) hits the nail on the head. This is about denying immigrants their statutory and Constitutional rights while the Administration engages in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) an egregious political abuse that I have been railing against ever since I retired in 2016.
Judge Tabaddor’s words are worth repeating:
“Our dockets have been used as a political tool regardless of which administration is in power and this constant docket reshuffling, constant reprioritization of cases has only increased the backlog,” Tabaddor said.
In plain terms this is fraud, waste, and abuse that Sessions and the DOJ are attempting to “cover up” by dishonestly attempting to “shift the blame” to immigrants, attorneys, and Immigration Judges who in fact are the victims of Session’s unethical behavior. If judges “pedaling faster” were the solution to the backlog (which it isn’t) that would mean that the current backlog was caused by Immigration Judges not working very hard, combined with attorneys and immigrants manipulating the system. Sessions has made various versions of this totally bogus claim to cover up his own “malicious incompetence.”
Indeed, by stripping Immigration Judges of authority effectively to manage their dockets; encouraging mindless enforcement by DHS; terminating DACA without any real basis; insulting and making life more difficult for attorneys trying to do their jobs of representing respondents; attacking legal assistance programs for unrepresented migrants; opening more “kangaroo courts” in locations where immigrants are abused in detention to get them to abandon their claims for relief; threatening established forms of protection (which in fact could be used to grant more cases at the Asylum Office and by stipulation — a much more sane and legal way of reducing dockets); canceling “ready to hear” cases that then are then “orbited” to the end of the docket to send Immigration Judges to detention courts where the judges sometimes did not have enough to do and the cases often weren’t ready for fair hearings; denying Immigration Judges the out of court time necessary to properly prepare cases and write decisions; and failing to emphasize the importance of quality and due process in appellate decision-making at the BIA, Sessions is contributing to and accelerating the breakdown of justice and due process in the U.S. Immigration Courts.
PWS
04-11-18
