Nolan writes:
“Knowing that an alien in the United States who is charged with being deportable has a statutory right to a hearing before an immigration judge and that there is a backlog crisis in our immigration courts, I predicted that President Donald Trump would not be able to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.
Since then, the backlog has gotten even higher. As of the end of January 2017, it was 542,411 cases and the average wait time for a hearing was almost 700 days.
Even if the immigration judges did not receive any additional cases, it would take them more than two-and-a-half years to catch up.
But President Trump has finessed his way around this problem by implementing a little-known expedited removal provision in his executive order (EO), “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.” The provision is section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 established expedited removal proceedings to deal with fraud and willful misrepresentations at ports of entry and to stop aliens with bogus asylum claims from being admitted for asylum hearings before an immigration judge. Many of them absconded instead of appearing at their hearings.
Under expedited removal proceedings, which are conducted by immigration officers, an alien who lacks proper documentation or has committed fraud or willful misrepresentation of facts to gain admission into the United States is inadmissible and may be removed without a hearing before an immigration judge. Aliens subject to expedited removal must be detained until they are removed and normally may only be released due to a medical emergency.”
******************************
I agree with Nolan that the intent of the Trump Executive Order is to reduce the number of individuals who will be entitled to “full” removal hearings before an Immigration Judge. But, even if the Administration applies expedited removal in its broadest permissible form under the statute — to individuals who have been in the U.S. for less than two years, the vast majority of individuals in the U.S. without documentation will still be entitled to hearings in U.S. Immigration Court.
First, for a number of reasons, and quite contrary to the Trump Administration’s alarmist rhetoric, illegal entries have been declining over recent years. The overwhelming number of the estimated 11 million undocumented migrants in the U.S have been here at least two years and would therefore be entitled to full hearings.
The estimated number of undocumented migrants in the United States has actually dropped by one million, from approximately 12 million around 2007 to approximately 11 million today. And, although neither the Trump Administration nor most Republican legislators are willing to admit it, at least some of the credit belongs to the Obama Administration for increased border enforcement.
Moreover, the bulk of the undocumented arrivals over the past several years have been children, women, and families fleeing violence and corruption in the Northern Triangle of Central America. Most turn themselves in to the authorities at the border or shortly after crossing the border and seek asylum. The majority of those have been determined to have a “credible fear” of persecution and therefore have already been placed in removal proceedings.
As Nolan points out in his article, individuals who have not applied for asylum within one year of entry are prima facie barred from seeking asylum. However, there are exceptions to this rule for those who can demonstrate fundamentally changed circumstances or extraordinary circumstances directly related to the delay in filing.
Perhaps even more significantly, the one year bar does not apply to claims for protection under the withholding of removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, nor does it apply to claims under the Convention Against Torture. Other forms of relief under the Act also remain available to individuals who failed to timely file for asylum.
Additionally, even where an individual is subject to “expedited removal” she or he is still be entitled to a full removal hearing before an Immigration Judge if a DHS Asylum Officer finds that such individual has a “credible fear” of persecution.
As Nolan also points out, even where an Asylum Officer finds “no credible fear,” an individual may seek review by an Immigration Judge. Such reviews should take precedence over other types of detained hearings. Consequently, a dramatic increase in “credible fear” denials could well result in Immigration judges spending more time on such hearings and therefore having less time to conduct actual individual hearings on removability and relief.
While to date, the Article III Courts have seemed to accept the statutory limitations on their ability to review expedited removal and credible fear determinations, the Administration’s attempt to “ratchet up” summary removals is almost certainly going to draw more sophisticated constitutional challenges to the process from the advocacy community. And if, as is likely, the Administration “pushes the envelope” by attempting to remove individuals on an expedited basis without giving them a fair chance to obtain evidence that they have been present for two or more years, the Article III Courts are at some point likely to intervene to force at least some procedural due process into the system.
Consequently, notwithstanding efforts by the Trump Administration to circumvent the Immigration Court process, the new enforcement initiatives are still likely to put more than enough new cases before the Immigration Courts to crush an already overwhelmed system.
PWS
02/26/16