"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
This paper examines the staffing needs of the US Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), as it seeks to eliminate an immigration court backlog, which approached 2.5 million pending cases at the end of fiscal year (FY) 2023. A previous study by the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) attributed the backlog to systemic, long-neglected problems in the broader US immigration system. This paper provides updated estimates of the number of immigration judges (IJs) and “judge teams” (IJ teams) needed to eliminate the backlog over ten and five years based on different case receipt and completion scenarios. It also introduces a data tool that will permit policymakers, administrators and researchers to make their own estimates of IJ team hiring needs based on changing case receipt and completion data. Finally, the paper outlines the pressing need for reform of the US immigration system, including a well-resourced, robust, and independent court system, particularly in light of record “encounters” of migrants at US borders in FY 2022 and 2023.
********************
Wow! This is beyond amazing! Kudos and thanks to Don and Brendan for this incredibly helpful and informative analytical tool. Get the full report and access to all the charts and interactive features at the above link!
Just yesterday, my friend, Arizona “practical humanitarian” Robb Victor, was asking about how legislators and policy makers could do better planning for hiring Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers to reduce the backlog and address processing problems at the border. This is for you, Robb!
As Don and Brendan cogently point out, hiring alone can’t solve the problem! America needs positive, due-process-oriented, reforms to our legal immigration system embracing the reality and the economic power of robust orderly refugee and asylum acceptance and increases in legal immigration of all types.
The longer we ignore the need for these positive changes, and embrace the dangerous and defective myth that we can or should continue the failed program of attempting to enforce our way out of the migration realities and opportunities of the 21st century, the longer the disorder and grotesque waste of human lives and fiscal resources by our nation will continue.
”Casey is still shaking his head. With so much executive talent and legal expertise available ‘in the market’ how could the Biden Administration’s immigration bureaucracy and their political overlords perform with such disasterous incompetence?” PHOTO: Rudi Reit Creative Commons
Fresh off a recent disaster where they illegally released the names of thousands of vulnerable asylum seekers in the U.S., the DHS announced another major data screw-up. This time it concerned so-called “alternatives to detention.”
ICE has informed TRAC that Alternatives to Detention (ATD) data previously released by the agency on several occasions between August 2022 and December 2022, as well as data previously released for FY 2022, was inaccurate. TRAC therefore urges caution in interpreting the latest numbers ICE has just posted.
The data ICE has been posting for months showed that use of GPS ankle monitors had been increasing which TRAC previously reported. ICE now reports this is incorrect, that ankle monitor usage is in fact way down, not up. Adding to the confusion, ICE frequently posts data, replaces it, and replaces it again without any indication that changes have taken place, or which set are the “correct” numbers.
ICE data reporting problems extend beyond the GPS ankle monitor usage. ICE’s new data for FY 2022 significantly revised the previously numbers for every single one of the ATD reported technologies—not only GPS, but also SmartLINK, and VoiceID, as well. Not only did the use of GPS monitors drop, but the public now learned that one-in-nine (11%) were not being monitored with the use of any technology at all! Also materially revised were the costs for technology during FY 2022 and average lengths in the program, as well as what was happening in a substantial number of local AOR offices across the country.
So, instead of ankle-monitor use increasing, as previously reported, it substantially decreased: The polar opposite. Yet, by the time this “correction” surfaces, media reports and sometimes even actions based on the bogus data have already taken place. Often, the “belated truth” becomes “back-page news,” if news at all.
Let’s be clear. These aren’t minor “rounding errors” or “adjustments or corrections” that don’t materially affect the picture painted by the original “data dump.” They are major screw-ups that basically “change the answer from A to B or from Yes to No.”
This the just the latest stunning indication of management failure within the Biden immigration bureaucracy. It goes along with “task avoidance” on very achievable fixes at the border, endless backlogs, completely dysfunctional Immigration Courts, abandonment of the rule of law, and lack of any overall values-based legal strategy when it comes to immigration, human rights, and racial justice.
You can read the complete TRAC report on the latest DHS bungling here:TRAC DHS Data Wrong. Just “warning” folks not to trust DHS data isn’t enough. In a data-riven world, the public deserves and requires competent management and accurate data from our immigration agencies!
“Judge” Roy Bean (1825-1903) American Saloon Keeper & “Jurist” Public Realm His reputation for “rough justice” in the West would be right at home in the “Asylum Free Zones” of Garland’s EOIR. Bean “was once trying a Mexican on a charge of horse stealing and his charge was the shortest on record: Gentlemen of the Jury, there’s a greaser in the box and a hoss missing. You know your duty, and they did.”
Here’s the latest analysis of Garland’s ongoing abuse of his office from Austin Kocher, PhD, at TRAC:
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
If someone NOT Merrick “What Me Worry” Garland (the “Alfred E. Neumann of Biden’s immigration bureaucracy”) took a look at the data, one major thing would jump out! There are likely more than 400,000 refugees entitled to asylum sitting in Garland’s 770,000 case asylum backlog (52% x 770,000). (The asylum backlog at EOIR is a “subset” of Garland’s largely self-inflicted, ever mushrooming, nearly 2 million case EOIR backlog — more judges have produced more backlog, so that’s likely NOT the answer here).
And, this is in a system currently governed by skewed anti-asylum BIA “precedents” and a chronic “anti-asylum culture” actively encouraged and fed by the Trump Administration. In a properly staffed and functioning court system with qualified, due-process oriented, judges and an expert BIA that enforced some decisional consistency and properly and generously interpreted asylum law, a “grant rate” of 75% or more would be a plausible expectation.
Given the obvious (and I would argue intentional) lack of reliable data on how a legitimate asylum system, one consisting at all levels of judges with well-recognized expertise in asylum law and human rights, and overseen by competent, due-process-oriented judicial administrators, might function, the 75% figure is just an “educated guesstimate.” But, it matches my own personal experience over 13 years on the bench in the (now defunct) Arlington Immigration Court.
It’s also in line with my recent conversations with the head of one of the largest NGOs in the DMV area involved in meeting busses and counseling those “orbited” from the Southern border by the racist/nativist GOP Govs that Biden, curiously, has chosen to run our domestic refugee resettlement program. This is a person who, unlike Garland, his lieutenants, and most of the other politicos and nativist blowhards participating in the “border travesty,” actually spent years of a career representing individuals in Immigration Court. They estimated that “at least 70%” of the “arriving bus riders” had very viable asylum claims.
This is a far cry from the nativist, restrictionist myths promoted by both the Trump and Biden Administrations — obviously to cover up their gross human rights violations in knowingly and illegally returning hundreds of thousands of legal refugees to danger zones! Many human rights experts would consider such gross misconduct to be “crimes against humanity.” Consequently, it doesn’t take much imagination to see why self-interested scofflaw officials like Garland, Mayorkas, and White House advisors seek to manipulate the system to keep the asylum grant rates artificially low while eschewing proper, realistically robust use of the overseas refugee program to take the pressure off the border — by acting legally rather than illegally!
Almost all the EOIR asylum backlog consists of “regular docket” (I use this term lightly with EOIR where “normalcy” is unknown) cases. Those are refugees who have had time to get lawyers, adequately prepare, document their cases, but are stuck in Garland’s chronically dysfunctional system. Consequently, they are “denied by delay” legal immigration status, a chance to get green cards, and to eventually qualify for citizenship. The American economy is denied an important source of legal workers who should be part of our permanent workforce and well on their way to full participation in our political system and society!
An expert looking at this system would see a “golden opportunity” to move most of the backlogged “easily grantable” asylum cases out of the system with stipulated grants or short hearings (the kind you actually might be able to do 3-4 a day without stepping on anyone’s due-processrights or driving the private bar nuts). These cases would also avoid the BIA’s appellate backlog, as well as eliminating unnecessary workload in the U.S. Circuit Courts (which already have their own inconsistency, rubber stamp, and bias issues in the human rights/racial justice area that seem to be getting worse, not better).
Knocking 400,000+ cases off the backlog wouldn’t completely solve Garland’s 2 million case backlog problem — only a complete “house cleaning” at EOIR, replacing many of the current bureaucrats with competent leaders and expert Immigration Judges well-versed in asylum law, will do that. But, cutting EOIR’s backlog by 20% (and the asylum backlog by over 50%) without stomping on anyone’s rights, while bolstering much-needed legal immigration, and harnessing the strengths of the private/pro bono bar, is nothing to “sneeze at!” That’s particularly true in comparison with Garland’s two years of mindless “designed to fail” gimmicks and astounding mismanagement, which have produced exactly the opposite results!
How bad has Garland’s leadership been at on human rights, due process, and racial justice at DOJ. A number of seasoned asylum practitioners have told me that today’s EOIR, also suffering from a tidal wave of Garland’s“Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — is actually significantly worse than it was under Trump! That’s right, Garland’s tone-deaf incompetence has exceeded the disorder and systemic unfairness caused by overt xenophobia, anti-asylum bias, misogyny, “dumbing down,” and enforcement-biased “weaponization” of the Sessions/Barr years.
As for Dr. Kocher’s cogent observation that input from the Immigration Judges who actually decide these cases is a “missing ingredient,” good luck with that, my friend! Perhaps understandably in light of his unseemly failures at EOIR, Garland has taken EOIR’s traditional opaqueness and “muzzling” of Immigration Judges to new heights — even barring their participation in CLE events aimed at improving the level of practice before his courts.
Apparently, “studied incompetence” in a Democratic Administration can be even worse than the “malicious incompetence” of the Trump Kakistocracy — at least where immigrants rights/human rights/racial justice/ women’s rights are concerned at EOIR. That’s an astounding observation! One that I actually never thought I’d hear from practitioners!
The only way for human rights and racial justice experts and advocates to “communicate” with Garland in his “ivory tower” is to ‘“sue his tail” in court! Judge Sullivan’s recent opinion finding Title 42 illegal incorporates the very facts and law used by human rights experts and advocates in years of fruitless pleading and begging Garland to “cease and desist” his support for unlawful conduct and “just follow the law.” The latter seems like a modest “no-brainer” request to a guy once nominated by an Dem President for the Supremes.
Waiting for Merrick Garland to fix the mess at EOIR to provide even a bare minimum of due process and rational administration is like waiting for the guy pictured below. Frustrated and “Garland-weary” as they might be, human rights advocates should take it to heart and act accordingly!
Waiting for Merrick Garland and his “clueless crew” at DOJ to fix the dysfunctional Immigration Courts will be an exercise in futility. He only pays attention when ordered by a Federal Judge, which, somewhat ironically, he used to be. But, he’s proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” that he is unqualified to run one of the most important and life-determining Federal Judiciaries — one where due process has been buried beneath an avalanche of expediency, incompetency, intellectual dishonesty, and dumb gimmicks. When will “enough be enough?” https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0
Asylum seekers and lawyers must cross hostile territory, with a dearth of naturally-occurring due process, to successfully negotiate Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR. Most never make it! Death Valley Creative Commons
INSIDE THE NUMBERS FOR THE TRAC 10-09-22 IJ REPORT
NOTE: Does not account for: IJs no longer on the bench; IJs appearing in more than one location; differences among detained, non-detained dockets; profiles of high and non-high-denying courts excluded locations with fewer than four IJs listed. No guarantee of accuracy for my “hand count” — but, in accordance with the old government motto, “I did the best I could under the circumstances.”
Precipitous unexplained rise in nationwide denial rate since FY 2012, from 44.5% to 63.3%, even though human rights conditions in most so-called “sending countries” remained horrible and in some cases significantly deteriorated.See for FY2012 stats, https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/306/
Lots of “Nay-Sayers” on the Immigration Bench:
92 IJs denied asylum 90% or more of the time.
Another 94 IJs denied 85-90% of the time.
Total of 186 “High Deniers” — those who denied 85% or more — significantly (21.7% or more) above already inexplicably high 63.3% national rate.
High Denying Courts (majority of IJs listed denied 85%+)
Atlanta (including ATD-Detained) (10 of 10 IJs)
Charlotte (6 of 8 IJs)
Conroe (5 of 9 IJs)
Houston (19 of 22 IJs)
Houston-Greenspoint (4 of 5 IJs)
Jena (6 of 6 IJs)
LA – North (8 of 11 IJs)
Los Fresnos (5 of 6 IJs)
Lumpkin (5 of 7 IJs)
Memphis (6 of 11 IJs)
Miami (20 of 31 IJs)
Miamii – Krome (7 of 9 IJs)
Non-High-Denying Courts (all, or almost all, listed IJs denied less than 85%)
Adelanto (5 IJs)
Arlington (3 of 25 IJs High Deniers)
Bloomington (1 of 13 IJs High Denier)
Boston (1 of 15 IJs High Denier)
Baltimore (1 of 16 IJs High Denier)
Batavia (1 of 4 IJs High Denier)
Chicago (1 of 16 IJs High Denier)
Denver (2 of 8 IJs High Deniers)
Detroit (4 IJs)
Elizabeth (5 IJs)
Imperial (5 IJs)
New York (46 IJs, 0 High Deniers) **
New York Detained (17 IJs, 1 High Denier)
Newark (3 of 16 IJs High Deniers)
Otay Mesa (7 IJs)
Pearsall (5 IJs)
Philadelphia (8 IJs)
Portland OR (4 IJs)
San Francisco (2 of 27 High Deniers)
Seattle (8 IJs)
Tacoma (5 IJs)
Van Nuys (1 of 7 IJs High Denier)
Telling stats:99.1%, 97.4%, 94.3% 90.4% — Asylum denial rates for four BIA Appellate Immigration Judges listed in the chart who continue to serve on Garland’s BIA. No wonder asylum seekers are saddled with bad law and sloppy, one-sided appellate review within Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR.
Best courts for asylum seekers: Generallyin the Northeast and Northern California: Arlington, Boston, Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, Newark, San Francisco, Chicago.
Worst places for asylum seekers: Atlanta, Miami, Charlotte, Houston, Louisiana.
Mind-blowing stat: Compare the performance of IJs in Arlington and Baltimore with those in Charlotte, all within the 4th Circuit.
Observations:
New York, followed by San Francisco, appear to be the largest and best functioning courts with respect to actually following the generous standards for asylum seekers set forth by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca, enunciated (but seldom followed) by the BIA in Mogharrabi, and to a large extent incorporated into sporadically enforced regulations.
In NY, 46 IJs, 0 High Deniers, 24 listed IJs granted at least 50% or more of the cases, denial rates ranging from 7.1% to 83.5%, still a rather mind-boggling range.The 24 IJs in the 50% or more grant range would seem like a good place for Garland to look for a model for rebuilding EOIR as a fair, due-process-oriented, subject matter expert court. He doesn’t seem interested in doing that, but it could be done with better leadership.
Although generally one would expect Detention Courts to be in the “High Denier” category, that’s not always the case. Courts like NY-Detained, Elizabeth, Adelanto, Otay Mesa, and Pearsall, all had some significant asylum grant rates. Conversely, several predominantly non-detained courts like Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, and Houston were unseemly “dead zones” for asylum seekers. Garland’s failure to address the gross inconsistencies and abuses of asylum law going on in those and other “High Denier Courts” is disgraceful.
Overall, this is a statistical picture of a failed and dysfunctional court system where critical life or death decisions depend more on where you are and who your judge or BIA “panel” is than on the quality of the evidence or the state of the law. It has failed to deliver on its promise of being a court of widely acknowledged subject matter experts who will guarantee due process, fundamental fairness, and best judicial practices for all on some of the most important and life-determining decisions in American jurisprudence. It’s bad; and not significantly improving under the Dems!
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
USCIS: USCIS released the revised editions of Form I-589 and Form I-765 in compliance with the Asylumworks decision. Effective Nov. 7, 2022, USCIS will only accept the 07/26/22 editions of the Form I-589 and Form I-765. Until then, you can submit either the new editions, or the previous editions of Form I-589 (dated 08/25/20) and Form I-765 (dated 05/31/22 and 08/25/20).
TRAC: Using detailed government records, TRAC found that the percent of Border Patrol (BP) apprehensions that comprise repeat border crossers did not significantly increase when, under Title 42 , illegal border crossers were not penalized or sanctioned before they were expelled. This finding, based on data obtained from the Border Patrol by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, is contrary to agency contentions and arguments by policy analysts that immediate expulsions without applying meaningful sanctions such as criminal prosecution to repeat crossers encourages illegal reentry attempts.
Pew: Republicans place particular importance on border security and deportations of immigrants who are in the country illegally, while Democrats place greater importance on paths to legal status for those who entered the country illegally – especially those who entered as children, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.
Politico: The new law unravels the Trump-era public-charge rule, under which immigrants could be denied permanent resident status if they had received or were expected to receive food assistance, Medicaid, housing assistance, or other public benefits. The Biden administration in stopped enforcing that regulation in March 2021.
Sentinel: Following a ruling that transferring migrant kids to adult detention centers just as they turned age 18 was illegal, a federal judge approved a settlement in a 2018 lawsuit this week.
Reuters: Beginning in 2019, Suffolk County was an early pilot site for the Verus AI-scanning system sold by California-based LEO Technologies, which uses Amazon speech-to-text technology to transcribe phone calls flagged by key word searches… Suffolk County is among dozens of county jails and state prisons in seven U.S. states including major metro areas such as Houston, Texas, and Birmingham, Alabama, that LEO says have so far implemented the Verus system to monitor inmates’ calls.
JDSupra: This is a significant accomplishment for the agency because it approved approximately twice the annual allocation of employment-based immigrant visas in fiscal year 2022 (FY22).
Law360: A Salvadoran man convicted of marijuana possession cannot overcome removal requirements of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act through a waiver found in a 1952 immigration law, the Third Circuit ruled Friday, denying his petition for review of a deportation order.
Law360: The Fifth Circuit on Friday rejected a Guatemalan man’s bid to cancel his deportation on the basis that it would cause his stepchildren extreme hardship, saying he didn’t provide evidence strong enough to prove they were U.S. citizens.
Law360: The Ninth Circuit ruled Thursday that immigrants challenging deportation orders from mandatory detention aren’t entitled to bond hearings while the federal courts review the orders, citing a recent high court ruling at odds with a prior circuit decision allowing bond.
NIJC: A federal court approved a settlement agreement on September 7 in a lawsuit challenging the unlawful detention of unaccompanied children who turn 18 in U.S. government custody and are transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities.
GovExec: In its appeal in federal circuit court, the National Association of Immigration Judges accused the Federal Labor Relations Authority’s then-Republican majority of already deciding to decertify the union before considering arguments in the case.
DHS: The rule restores the historical understanding of a ‘public charge’ that had been in place for decades, until the prior Administration began to consider supplemental public health benefits such as Medicaid and nutritional assistance as part of the public charge inadmissibility determination.
AILA: DHS notice extending the designation of Venezuela for TPS for 18 months, from 9/10/22 through 3/10/24. The 60-day re-registration period for existing TPS beneficiaries runs from 9/8/22 through 11/7/22. (87 FR 55024, 9/8/22)
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
Sure looks like CBP is “apprehending” the same individuals multiple times. Also, many of theseso-called “apprehensions” want to be “caught” because it’s the only possible way of getting the chance to apply for asylum that our law guarantees, but fails to provide in practice. That’s because ports of entry are still “closed” under bogus Title 42 restrictions. So, the overhyped “border apprehensions” appear, to a significant extent, to be “smoke and mirrors.”
It’s really not surprising that “sanctions” apparently don’t deter unlawful entries. That’s because 1) the vast majority of unlawful entrants aren’t “criminals” in any normal sense of the word except in the mind of White Nationalist xenophobes, 2) many are just trying to get the Government to follow the law and let them apply for asylum, or other legal protections, and 3) even those without credible claims for protection are, for the most part, at worst, just coming here to work at jobs that U.S. workers don’t want.
Jeff Session’s racist “zero tolerance program” of useless border prosecutions violated the Constitution by intentionally separating families, cost the Government millions, ruined lives, squandered prosecutorial resources that should have been spent on real crime, and accomplished absolutely nothing positive. Yet, Sessions, his neo-Nazi henchman Stephen Miller, and the government sycophants (including unethical DOJ lawyers) who carried out this travesty remain free and will never be held accountable.
Somehow, GOP nativists have gotten away with turning the self-created border “crisis” upside down. If we cut through their smokescreen, we see that the Government actually is the “law breaker” and many of the “forced irregular entrants” actually are trying to comply with the law! Not to mention that the USG has failed to establish viable refugee programs to process Western Hemisphere refugees before they come to our borders. Pretty kafkaesque!
Also, the effort by unqualified right-wing Federal “Judges” and neo-fascist GOP state AG’s to close the border to legal asylum seekers is a national disgrace that seems to be “below the radar screen.” Gotta hope that history “toasts” these corrupt, ignorant, and immoral public officials even if there is little interest in holding them accountable in “real time.”
But, somehow, even the so-called “mainstream media” hypes the wrong story!
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.
Compare the reality of easily fixable systemic Government failures with gimmicks and harsh sanctions meant to dishonestly shift blame and consequences to individual victims.
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:
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:
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!
Adrift on a sea of endless incompetence, Garland’s “Dedicated Dockets” won’t save EOIR! U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Sara Francis Public Realm
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Immigration Court Struggling to Manage Its Expanding Dedicated Docket of Asylum-Seeking Families
During the month of August, the Biden administration stepped up the assignment of asylum-seeking families arriving at the border to the Immigration Court’s new “Dedicated Docket” program. As of August 31, 2021, Immigration Court records indicate that a total of 16,713 individuals comprising approximately 6,000 families are now assigned to this program.
But alongside the growing number of asylum-seekers assigned to the new Dedicated Docket, new questions emerge about whether these cases will be completed fairly and within the promised timeline, whether Immigration Judges will be able to manage large Dedicated Docket caseloads, and whether the Court is reliably tracking these cases as promised.
While EOIR has set up Dedicated Docket hearing locations in eleven cities, cases assigned thus far have been unusually concentrated in just a few cities. As of the end of August half of the 16,713 cases were assigned to New York City and Boston.
With the rapid influx of cases at a number of these Dedicated Docket hearing locations, half of the currently scheduled initial master hearings are not being held until after mid-November 2021, and fully one in ten are not currently scheduled until mid-February 2022. In addition, these hearings are largely to be held via video. Only eleven percent of all scheduled hearings are set as in-person hearings.
It also continues to be a relatively small number of judges who are assigned to hear these cases. Six judges now account for nearly two-thirds (63%) of the assigned Dedicated Docket cases. Each of these six judges has already been assigned over a thousand cases just during the first three months of this initiative. Judge Mario J. Sturla in Boston has thus far been assigned the most Dedicated Docket cases for any judge—3,178 cases.
Some basic arrangements are still not in place to ensure that cases assigned to the Dedicated Docket are clearly identified in the Court’s database system which is relied on to manage the Court’s workload. As of the end of August, fully 38 percent of cases assigned to the special hearing locations set up to exclusively handle Dedicated Dockets were not flagged as “DD” cases.
To examine a variety of Immigration Court data, including asylum data, the backlog, MPP, and more now updated through August 2021, use TRAC’s Immigration Court tools here:
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:
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.
*********************
I’m not aware of any “courtroom” at EOIR that actually could hold 129 respondents, their family members, and attorneys (if any). It’s a high volume court with a “mini-court” infrastructure. Our Masters were shut down several times by the Arlington Fire Department for unsafe conditions and blocking handicapped access.
Also, building new “gimmick dockets” without e-filing is totally insane!
I once did a 100-case TV Master in Cincinnati. I had no files! ICE sent their files to Cleveland while sending the Assistant Chief Counsel to appear in person in Cincinnati. They probably crossed “in transit.” EOIR provided a Spanish interpreter. However most of the non-English speakers on the docket were from Mauritania and spoke French or Wolof. It was a complete circus.
Afterwards, I told the then Chief Immigration Judge that it was “friggin’ Clown Court!” He was not amused. Nor was I!
Probably not a “career enhancing” move, but I was “working my way down the ladder” by that time.
Creating more unnecessary “gimmick dockets” at EOIR — just like hiring more new IJs, is NOT going to solve the extreme structural, organizational, personnel, and competence issues infecting the Immigration Courts. Actually, if anyone had bothered to check, “dedicated dockets” were tried during the Obama Administration. They inevitably failed — adding to the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” while undermining due process, efficiency, and best practices!
It’s not “rocket science.” 🚀 Anybody who actually practices (as best they can, under these near-impossible circumstances) in Immigration Court these days could tell Garland exactly what the problems are.
Nobody in their right mind would suggest that the “answer” is a “Dedicated Docket” or infusing a large number of additional judges into this mess, although the solution definitely involves replacing some existing judges, starting with the BIA, and includes bringing in real progressive, expert judicial leadership. So, why is Garland rolling out more gimmicks and proposed personnel increases without addressing the REAL problems at EOIR?
Fix the system! Bring in expert progressive judges who know the law and are committed to best practices! Stop the politicized interference! Figure out what the real system requirements are! THEN go out and do additional merit-based hiring, if more judges are really part of the answer! (Hint: The vast majority of the 2+-year-old non-detained, non-priority cases should be administratively closed or referred to USCIS, or both. They are bogging down the system without promoting justice.)
Alas, poor EOIR seems to be adrift on a sea of endless incompetence, mismanagement, and neglect with no safe port in sight.
“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.
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:
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:
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.
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).
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!
ImmigrationProf blogger Ingrid Eagly and Steven Shafer in an op/ed in the Los Angeles Times take on President Trump who “[l]ast week, during the final presidential campaign debate, President Trump renewed a claim he has often made: Migrants with pending court dates rarely show up for their hearings. In response to the charge by his Democratic challenger, former Vice President Joe Biden, that the administration’s treatment of would-be immigrants was inhumane, Trump told debate watchers that the number who`come back’ to immigration court is `less than 1%.’
The government’s data, however, tell a far different story.”
Check out the op/ed and the take down of President.
A new fact sheet by Nina Siulc and Noelle Smart of the Vera Institute of Justice summarizes new evidence showing that most immigrants appear for their immigration court hearings. The report includes data from Vera’s Safety and Fairness for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative that provides free representation through a universal access model of representation. Vera researchers found that 98 percent of SAFE clients released from custody have continued to appear for their court hearings. Read the full report for additional information on related research, including Vera’s ongoing evaluation of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP).
I[ngrid] E[agly]
***********************
Thanks, Ingrid and Steven! Our “Round Table” has used your scholarship in amicus briefs to educate Federal Courts at all levels about the realities of Immigration Court.
It’s particularly critical in an era where the politicized and “ethically challenged” DOJ often puts forth largely fictionalization versions of their self-manufactured “immigration emergency” that is actually little more than the outcome of studied ignorance, White Nationalism, “gonzo” enforcement, and maliciously incompetent administration of the Federal immigration bureaucracy.
Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
If we kick out the kakistocracy next week, we could put qualified “practical scholars” like Ingrid and others like her in charge and remake both DHS and the Immigration Courts to actually operate as required by Due Process while also fulfilling legitimate law-enforcement objectives. To state the obvious, neither of these objectives is being realized at present. It’s bad for America and for humanity.
For far too long, the wrong individuals, lacking the necessary expertise in immigration and human rights, and also lacking a firm commitment to equal justice under law, have been “in charge” of the Government’s immigration policy and legal apparatus and appointed to the Federal Courts, at all levels. That’s particularly true at the Supremes where only Justices Sotomayor and (some days) Kagan appear “up to the job.”
We will never end institutionalized racism, achieve equal justice for all, and realize the true human and economic potential of America until we bring our broken immigration and refugee systems and our failing Federal Judicial System into line with our Constitutional and national values. That process must start, but certainly will not end, with this election!
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.
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:
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:
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.
🏴☠️🤡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:
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:
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:
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!
The Hidden Impact of Removal Proceedings on Rural Communities
Although the Immigration Courts with the largest backlogs of cases are located in large cities, the latest Immigration Court records show that when adjusted for population, many rural counties have higher rates of residents in removal proceedings than urban counties. In fact, of the top 100 US counties with the highest rates of residents in removal proceedings, nearly six in ten (59%) are rural. In these communities, residents facing deportation may find themselves in rural “legal deserts[1]” where there are few qualified immigration attorneys, longer travel times to court, and high rates of poverty.
The Immigration Court data used in this report was obtained and analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University in response to its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
Mapping Pending Immigration Court Cases
TRAC recently mapped the Immigration Court’s current active backlog—over 1.1 million cases—to show the number of residents in each county who are awaiting their day in court. In this follow-on report, TRAC used the same data set to map the proportion of residents (“rate”) with pending immigration cases as a fraction of total residents[2].
When the total number of backlog cases is mapped, urban areas such as Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago emerge as areas with large numbers of pending cases. This makes sense, because the total number of immigration cases is driven by the geographic concentration of large numbers of people in urban areas. However, when the number of pending immigration cases is mapped relative to county population, a different picture emerges. Many large urban counties are revealed to be more average, while many rural counties are shown to have much higher concentrations of removal cases.
In these rural counties, residents may have a heightened sense that immigration enforcement is impacting their community. This, in fact, would be an entirely rational perception since the odds are indeed greater.
Figure 1 below includes a map of the proportion of residents in each county currently in the backlog (top) and the total number of cases in each county in the backlog (bottom, reprinted from our previous report). The county-level rate is represented as the number per 100,000 residents who are currently in removal proceedings.
Particularly striking is how many counties in Southern California and the New York City-Boston corridor, which are prominent in the map of the number of cases, look more typical once population is taken into account. Also striking is how counties in the Great Plains regions from Southwest Minnesota to western Oklahoma pop off the map as places where higher percentages of the community are facing deportation proceedings today.
******************
There is little doubt that DHS Enforcement and their “partners at EOIR” have made an effort to hinder individuals’ Constitutional and statutory right to representation by counsel of their choice. From “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” to locating so-called “detained courts” in obscure places, to arbitrary denial of continuances, to restricting bonds, to failures to provide notices and giving intentionally “bogus” notices, to rude and unprofessional treatment of attorneys, to trying to get rid of “know your rights” presentations, to skewing the law to change results to favor DHS.
All this leads to a largely “due process free” Deportation Railroad.
Michelle Mendez Defending Vulnerable Populations Director Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (“CLINIC”)
She was a Leader of the NDPA before there was an NDPA! Now Michelle Mendez and her CLINIC Team are giving you “the skinny” on how to combat EOIR’s “Raging War on Due Process!”
Friends,
Wanted to share with you two new CLINIC resources:
An immigration judge may issue an in absentia removal order if the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, establishes by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence that the respondent had written notice of the hearing and is removable as charged on the Notice to Appear. There are many reasons why a respondent may fail to appear at a removal hearing, including lack of notice of the hearing, sickness, a breakdown in transportation, limited or no English knowledge, or because the respondent is a child without the help of a responsible adult who can assist them in getting to the hearing. As documented in the report Denied a Day in Court: The Government’s Use of in absentia Removal Orders Against Families Seeking Asylum, CLINIC learned about these reasons firsthand while representing 46 families released from detention and successfully challenging their in absentia removal orders. Perhaps the main factor for failing to appear at scheduled hearings in immigration court is the presence or absence of legal counsel to orient the respondent through the layers of government bureaucracy and the complex immigration system.
On November 18, 2019, CLINIC submitted a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, seeking data on the number of in absentia removal orders issued based on legal representation status. CLINIC requested three sets of in absentia order data: the total number of in absentia removal orders issued since 2008, the number of in absentia orders issued to Unaccompanied Children, or UACs, since 2008, and the number of in absentia orders issued to families classified by EOIR as “Family Unit,” FAMU, cases since November 16, 2018. On March 13, 2020, EOIR responded with a three-tab Excel spreadsheet of raw in absentia removal order data. CLINIC has calculated the in absentia removal order raw data into percentages.
Here are some key takeaways from the data:
Although, according to EOIR statistics, the current overall representation rate is 65 percent for all pending cases, those who are unable to secure representation are at extraordinary risk of receiving in absentia removal orders. 92.6 percent of those with in absentia orders issued in fiscal year, or FY, 2020 were unrepresented.
Although, according to EOIR statistics, the current overall representation rate is 68 percent for all UAC pending cases, UACs who are unable to secure representation are also at extreme risk of receiving in absentia removal orders. 88 percent of those with in absentia orders issued in fiscal year FY2020 were unrepresented.
Since 2008, the percentage of unrepresented respondents with in absentia removal orders has been at least double that of in absentia orders of removal issued to represented respondents.
Since 2008, at least 70.8 percent of UACs who were issued in absentia orders of removal were unrepresented and, so far this fiscal year, the unrepresented rate for UACs who received in absentia orders of removal has been the highest ever, at 88 percent.
The number of in absentia removal orders issued by EOIR to unrepresented respondents in FY2020 surpassed the total number of in absentia orders issued to unrepresented respondents in FY2019 in just the first five and a half months of FY2020.
EOIR has issued more in absentia removal orders in the three and a half combined fiscal years covering the Trump presidency, than it did during the eight combined fiscal years covering the Obama presidency.
Total in absentia removal orders from FY2008 through FY2016 were 246,893. Total in absentia removal orders from FY2017 through FY2020 (through March 13, 2020), were 267,696
EOIR has issued more in absentia removal orders to UACs in the three and a half combined fiscal years covering the Trump presidency, than it did during the eight combined fiscal years covering the Obama presidency.
Total in absentia orders of removal issued to UACs from FY2008 through FY2016 were 20,123. Total in absentia removal orders issued to UACs from FY2017 through FY2020 (through March 13, 2020), were 26,228.
During the date range covered by the data (FY2008 through FY2020 Q2), immigration judges issued the fewest number of in absentia removal orders in FY2012, the year that DHS announced DACA. During FY2012, DHS officially launched the prosecutorial discretion program in November 2011 and reviewed many pending removal proceedings to identify low-priority cases meriting favorable exercises of prosecutorial discretion.
Most immigration courts saw a decrease in in absentia orders of removal for unrepresented noncitizens in FY2012 compared to FY2011.
Unrepresented UACs suffered a huge jump of in absentia removal orders from FY2014 (1,701) to FY2015 (5,836). This hike in in absentias for UACs occurred concurrently with the increase in UACs fleeing El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, and arriving in neighboring countries and at the U.S.-Mexico border.
89.6 percent of all family units who received an in absentia removal orders from November 16, 2018 to September 30, 2019, were unrepresented.
Of all the immigration courts, the Houston Immigration Court issued the most in absentia removal orders in unrepresented FAMU cases during this period: 4,108 (which translates into 93.8 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).
Of all the immigration courts, the Miami Immigration Court issued the second most in absentia removal orders in unrepresented FAMU cases during this period: 3,347 (which translates into 89.5 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).
94.2 percent of all family units who received in absentia removal orders from October 1, 2019 to March 13, 2020, were unrepresented.
Of all the immigration courts, the Houston Immigration Court issued the most in absentia removal orders in FAMU cases from October 1, 2019 to March 13, 2020: 4,931 (which translates into 95.62 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).
Of all the immigration courts, the Atlanta Immigration Court issued the second most in absentia removal orders in FAMU cases from October 1, 2019 to March 13, 2020: 4,662 (which translates into 98.27 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).
Oddly, several immigration courts that oversee only detained dockets, including the Elizabeth Detention Center, recorded in absentia removal orders during the FOIA time period.
In FY2020, immigration judges have issued more in absentia removal orders than any prior year since 2008, and we are only five and a half months into the federal fiscal year.
Of all the immigration courts, the Harlingen Immigration Court has recorded the most unrepresented in absentia removal orders overall in FY2020 so far: 8,357.
Of all the immigration courts, the New York City Federal Plaza Immigration Court has recorded the most represented in absentia removal orders overall in FY2020: 753.
Of all the immigration courts, the Miami Immigration Court has recorded the most unrepresented in absentia removal orders for UACs in FY2020: 430.
Of all the immigration courts, the New York City Federal Plaza Immigration Court has recorded the most represented in absentia removal orders for UACs in FY2020: 73.
Thanks for helping us share these!
Michelle N. Mendez (she/her/ella/elle)
Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)
Embracing the Gospel value of welcoming the stranger, CLINIC promotes the dignity and protects the rights of immigrants in partnership with a dedicated network of Catholic and community legal immigration programs.
***********************
Now, it’s hardly “news” that there is a strong positive correlation between legal representation and appearance in Immigration Court. That information came to light way back in the Obama Administration and has consistently been reinforced by data that contradicts the lies about failures to appear put out on a regular basis by regime officials.
Given the clear correlation, the best way to make a fair due process system function would be if the Government worked hand in hand with NGOs, charitable organizations, local bar associations, and others involved in providing pro bono representation to insure that at least all asylum applicants and children are represented before the Immigration Courts. Due Process and fundamental fairness would be served and the in absentia rate would crater. In other words, due process with efficiency, an achievable “win-win!”
Instead, the Trump regime, through both EOIR and DHS, has made a concerted attack on the right to counsel in a transparent attempt to increase the number of in absentia orders and “speed up the deportation railroad” that EOIR now runs as its “one and only mission.”
How does something masquerading as a “court” system conduct a “deportation railway?” It takes lots of complicity and supposedly responsible public officials and citizens intentionally “looking the other way” and studiously ignoring the obvious!
I hope that advocates will be able to use the data provided by CLINIC to expose to the Article III Courts and Congress the rampant fraud, waste, abuse, and just plain “malicious incompetence” of EOIR and DHS (is there really a difference these days? Not apparent to most of us who follow the “Star Chambers” with regularity.).
Remember, moral cowardice and intellectual dishonesty often begin with picking on the most vulnerable and defenseless among us. And what follows is likely to be unspeakably bad, based on history!
Thanks, Michelle, my friend, for all you and CLINIC do.
According to the latest report from TRAC Immigration, just under 100,000 cases were added to the Immigration Court’s backlog since the beginning of FY 2020. A total of 1,122,824 cases are now pending on the court’s active docket as of the end of February 2020. This is up from 542,411 cases when President Trump assumed office. When 320,173 inactive Backlogswpending cases are included, the court’s current backlog now tops 1.4 million cases.
With most non-detained court hearings canceled due to the coronavirus pandemic, the backlog is slated to grow even higher, as TRAC found that it did as a result of the government shutdown in January 2019.
