EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
The Committee recommends $734,000,000 for the Executive Of- fice for Immigration Review (EOIR), of which $4,000,000 is from immigration examination fees. The recommendation is $61,034,000 above fiscal year 2020 and $148,872,000 below the request.
The recommendation includes $2,000,000 for EOIR’s portion of the development of the Unified Immigration Portal with the De- partment of Homeland Security (DHS) as well as increased funding for EOIR’s Information Technology (IT) modernization efforts, as requested. The recommendation also supports a level of funding that will allow for the continued hiring of immigration judges and teams. While the Committee recognizes EOIR has not requested any additional increase from its authorized position level from fis- cal year 2020, EOIR is currently well below this level and the Com-
SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with HEARING
VerDate Sep 11 2014
02:57 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 038847 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A847.XXX A847
63
mittee is concerned that proposed funding increases are for posi- tions who will not be on board in fiscal year 2021.
Legal Orientation Program (LOP).—For the LOP and related ac- tivities the recommendation includes $25,000,000, of which $4,000,000 is for the Immigration Court Helpdesk (ICH) program. The LOP improves the efficiency of court proceedings, reduces court costs, and helps ensure fairness and due process. The Committee directs the Department to continue LOP without interruption, in- cluding all component parts, including the Legal Orientation Pro- gram for Custodians of Unaccompanied Children (LOPC) and the ICH. The Committee directs the Department to brief the Com- mittee no later than 15 days after enactment of this Act on how EOIR is effectively implementing these programs, including the execution of funds and any changes to the management of the pro- gram. The recommended funding will allow for the expansion of LOP and ICH to provide services to additional individuals in immi- gration court proceedings. The Committee supports access to LOP and ICHs and looks forward to receiving EOIR’s evaluation of ex- panding this program to all detention facilities and immigration courts, as directed in House Report 116–101. The Committee is deeply concerned that EOIR plans to use fiscal year 2020 funds for the procurement of a web-based application that is still under de- velopment, but did not actively discuss these changes with the Committee. While the Committee understands the coronavirus pan- demic has impacted court operations and novel approaches may be necessary for continuity, it appears a portion of these specific funds may not be fully executed in fiscal year 2020 in support of the pro- gram to pursue a new operating procedure without additional de- tails on how this will impact the LOP program in future years. The Committee is concerned that plans for a web-based application will not adhere to congressional intent to expand this program to new locations and individuals. The Committee reminds EOIR that fund- ing for this program, in its ongoing, in-person format, is mandated by law, and any diversion of these funds from their intended pur- pose must be formally communicated and convincingly justified to the Committee, consistent with section 505 of this Act.
LOP Pilot.—The Committee further directs EOIR, in coordina- tion with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to pilot the expansion of LOP to at least one CBP processing facility with an added focus on expanding this program to family units. The Com- mittee further directs EOIR, in coordination with DHS, to assess the feasibility of expanding this pilot program nationally, and to re- port findings to the Committee no later than 180 days after the conclusion of the pilot.
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) Pro Bono Project.—The Committee recognizes the critical work of the BIA Pro Bono Project in facilitating pro bono legal representation for indigent, vulnerable respondents whose cases are before the Board. The Committee urges the continuation of participation of pro bono firms and non- government organizations (NGOs) in the BIA Pro Bono Project to directly facilitate case screening and legal representation. EOIR shall report annually to the Committee on the number of cases re- ferred to NGOs and pro bono legal representatives, the number of EOIR Form E 26 appeals filed against pro se respondents and filed by pro se respondents and make the information publicly available.
SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with HEARING
VerDate Sep 11 2014
02:57 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 038847 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A847.XXX A847
64
Immigration case quotas.—The Committee remains concerned with the performance review standards that went into effect Octo- ber 1, 2018, which require immigration judges to complete a quota of 700 case completions per year to receive a satisfactory review. Although the Committee appreciates efforts to reduce the current backlog, tying an immigration judge’s performance to case comple- tion threatens due process and affects judicial independence. Sec- tion 217 of the bill prohibits EOIR’s use of case completion quotas for immigration judge performance reviews.
Judicial Independence and Case Management.—All courts re- quire judges to utilize case management tools in order to ensure ef- ficient use of the court’s time and resources. The Committee is con- cerned by recent Attorney General decisions that curtail the ability of immigration judges to utilize critical docket management tools, such as continuances and terminations, that enable efficient man- agement of the court’s dockets. The Committee supports the utiliza- tion of such tools to the fullest extent practicable and reaffirms its support for the authority of immigration judges to exercise inde- pendent judgment and discretion in their case decisions. Further, the Committee supports full and fair hearings for all who come be- fore the courts but remains concerned about decisions that ulti- mately keep asylum seekers, including those seeking relief from do- mestic violence, in detention for longer periods of time.
Video teleconferencing.—The Committee is frustrated by EOIR’s response to information requested in the Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2020 Consolidated Appropriations Act regarding the publication of its policies for determining the use and dissemination of video teleconferencing (VTC) for individual merits hearings and tent court facilities. EOIR cites multiple policies on its website, but ultimately no central guidance on VTC appears to exist, outside of an interim policy document from 2004. The growth and dependence on VTC has developed since that time and it is concerning that EOIR does not have consistent rules governing the use of video teleconferencing, nor does it appear to have standards to ensure that the procedural and substantive due process of re- spondents in immigration court are protected. The Committee di- rects EOIR, within 90 days of enactment of this Act, to develop clear and consistent rules on the use of VTC hearings, including when the use of video teleconferencing is appropriate, and to de- velop rules for utilizing VTC hearings for particularly vulnerable groups such as unaccompanied minors, individuals with medical or mental health problems, and those subject to the Migrant Protec- tion Protocols (MPP) program. The Committee also directs EOIR to provide these newly developed policies to the Committee, and to make these policies publicly available.
Rocket Dockets.—The Committee is troubled by recent reports of changes in EOIR practices that expedite case processing and place unaccompanied children in so called ‘‘rocket dockets’’’ commencing their cases through VTC within days of their arrival in the United States. This practice is a shift from former precedent, and it lacks recognition that cases involving unaccompanied children are dif- ferent than detained adults. Immigration court proceedings must be tailored to the circumstances of individual cases in order to pre- serve due process and fundamental fairness, in particular for mi- nors. The Committee is equally troubled by reports that EOIR in-
SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with HEARING
VerDate Sep 11 2014
02:57 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 038847 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A847.XXX A847
65
tends to expand this expedited case processing for cases involving unaccompanied children, with little knowledge about how this proc- ess impacts children, their opportunity to find counsel, or the chal- lenges with communicating with children of varying ages.
EOIR is directed to report to the Committee no later than 30 days after enactment of this Act on the number of cases involving unaccompanied children that had a Master Calendar hearing scheduled within 30 days of their Notice to Appear (NTA), the loca- tion of these cases, including whether VTC was utilized for the hearing, whether the child had counsel, and the outcome of the pro- ceedings. Further, the Committee notes that EOIR has not commu- nicated with the Committee on this change in practice and is con- cerned that EOIR is piloting and expanding a new program that has not been explicitly authorized by Congress.
Tent Court Proceedings.—The Committee is concerned that the creation of new immigration hearing facilities, often referred to as ‘‘tent courts’’’, along the border, where judges appear via video tele- conferencing (VTC). The Committee is concerned that these new fa- cilities threaten the public nature of immigration court pro- ceedings. The Committee directs EOIR to provide a report within 60 days of the enactment of this Act that provides details on EOIR’s involvement in the creation and operation of such immigra- tion hearing facilities, as well as information detailing how EOIR schedules judges for hearings and a list of judges hearing cases in these facilities. EOIR shall also post to its website information on attorney access at those facilities, as well as policies regarding pub- lic and media access.
Migrant Protection Protocol (MPP) Statistics Publication.—With- in 60 days of enactment of this Act, and quarterly thereafter, EOIR is directed to publish on its public website: (1) the number of MPP Notices to Appear (NTA) received and completed, (2) the number of continuances or adjournments in non-MPP cases due to an immi- gration judge being reassigned to hear MPP cases, (3) the number of MPP hearings that occurred via VTC, and (4) the number of im- migration judges assigned to hear MPP cases. EOIR is also di- rected to publish the number of MPP hearings delayed as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, as well as the average length of delay. EOIR is further directed to publish all workload-related data cur- rently included on its Workload and Adjudication Statistics website page in separate MPP and non-MPP formats.
EOIR is also directed to develop a plan to begin tracking the ap- pearance rate of individuals placed into removal proceedings, bro- ken out into MPP and non-MPP cases, calculated by determining the percent of individuals who have attended all scheduled hear- ings in any given quarter, regardless of whether the hearing re- sulted in a completion. The Committee directs EOIR to report on its plans no later than 180 days after enactment of this Act.
Interpreters.—The recommendation includes the requested fund- ing increase for interpretation services. While the Committee recog- nizes that increasing numbers of respondents in immigration courts require the use of interpretation and the ballooning costs as- sociated with these interpretation services, the Committee directs EOIR to pursue cost efficient measures to ensure appropriate lan- guage access for all respondents, including indigenous language speakers, and further directs EOIR to submit a report to the Com-
SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with HEARING
VerDate Sep 11 2014
02:57 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 038847 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A847.XXX A847
66
mittee, no later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, outlining steps taken to reduce costs. The Committee eagerly awaits EOIR’s quarterly reports highlighting any continuances or adjournments for reasons related to interpretation as well as EOIR’s joint report with DHS on shared interpretation resources as directed in House Report 116–101.
Legal Representation.—The Committee is concerned with the low rate of representation in immigration court, and the recommenda- tion provides $15,000,000 in State and Local Law Enforcement As- sistance for competitive grants to qualified non-profit organizations for a pilot program to increase representation.
Immigration judges.—The Committee directs EOIR to continue to hire the most qualified immigration judges and BIA members from a diverse pool of candidates to ensure the adjudication process is impartial and consistent with due process. The Committee is dis- turbed by recent reports of politicized hiring processes for immigra- tion judges. The Committee directs EOIR to continue to submit monthly reports on performance and immigration judge hiring as directed in the fiscal year 2020 Explanatory Statement and is di- rected to include additional information on the status of hiring other positions that make up the immigration judge teams such as attorneys and paralegals. Finally, the Committee is concerned about a recent Department of Justice petition sent to the Federal Labor Relations Authority requesting the decertification of the Na- tional Association of Immigration Judges. The Committee recog- nizes the importance of our nation’s immigration judges and their ability to unionize.
Immigration Efficiency.—EOIR is encouraged to collaborate with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to explore efficiencies with regard to the co-location of DHS and DOJ components with immigration related responsibilities, including immigration courts, DHS asylum officers, medical care practitioners, and both CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) immigration officers.
Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Program.—The Committee is concerned that many individuals enrolled in ICE’s ATD program will be terminated from the program before their cases are fully re- solved. Getting timely resolution of these cases is complicated by the historic volume of pending cases on EOIR’s non-detained docket schedule. The Committee recognizes the ATD program is managed by ICE, and that EOIR currently lacks information about who is enrolled. However, the Committee also recognizes that the longer an individual remains on ATD while their case is pending before EOIR, the more expensive the ATD program is per enrollee, and the less effective the ATD program is. Prioritizing ATD enrollees’ cases as if they were on the detained docket could potentially in- crease the effectiveness of the program, lower the cost per enrollee, and support more individuals in the program overall. The Com- mittee directs EOIR, in coordination with ICE, to develop an anal- ysis of alternatives to improve the timeliness of resolving cases be- fore EOIR for individuals in the ATD program, and further to con- sider as one such alternative the classification of ATD enrollees as part of the detained docket for purposes of case prioritization. EOIR is directed to brief the Committee on their findings not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with HEARING
VerDate Sep 11 2014
02:57 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 038847 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A847.XXX A847
67
Court Operations during COVID–19.—The Committee under- stands that the novel coronavirus pandemic has forced the majority of Federal Government agencies to alter their normal operating procedures, and changes to court operations is no exception. How- ever, the Committee is frustrated that EOIR relied largely on Twit- ter to communicate its operational status. Many that were travel- ling, especially from Mexico, to appear at immigration court hear- ings, did not receive the updated information that the courts were closed. Even prior to the pandemic, the Committee was troubled by reports concerning the timeliness and receipt of hearing notices, as some were undeliverable as addressed and thus returned to immi- gration courts, and attempts to change addresses with the immi- gration court were often unsuccessful due to current backlogs. As of March 31, 2020, in absentia removal orders were already on the precipice of reaching the total number for all of fiscal year 2019. The Committee is concerned that the pandemic has exacerbated an already confusing process, resulting in an exponential increase in the number of removal orders for respondents who simply did not have the information to appear in court. Therefore, the Committee directs EOIR to submit a report to the Committee, within 90 days of enactment of this Act, that details the specific steps EOIR has taken since March 2020 to accommodate respondents who have missed court appearances due to COVID–19, and steps EOIR has taken to ensure respondents have a centralized mechanism to elec- tronically file an EOIR Form–33 in order to change their address remotely with EOIR, in addition to the current use of paper filings.
Report language from un-enacted appropriations bills doesn’t have any legal effect. But, it does show that at least on the Democratic side, legislators are beginning to penetrate the various smoke screens that DOJ and EOIR management have used to disguise their gross mismanagement and attacks on due process and to deflect blame to the victims: primarily respondents, their attorneys including pro bono groups, and in many cases their own judges and court staff. It also shows that contrary to DOJ/EOIR propaganda, pro bono programs and Legal Orientation Programs play an essential role in due process.
Let’s be very clear. This “fix-it list” will be ignored by the scofflaw kakistocracy firmly committed to a program of unfairness to migrants, hostility to pro bono organizations, worst practices, demeaning their own employees, not serving the public, and returning asylum seekers to mayhem, torture, and death without due process. However, it is a useful “to do” list for those future judicial leaders and administrators committed to judicial independence and restoring and improving due process and fundamental fairness for all in our Immigration Courts.
Hopefully, in the future, with some needed regime change this will result in an independent Article I Immigration Court replacing the unmitigated legal and management mess that has become EOIR under DOJ control.
