Trump Administration Moves To ‘Disband and Destroy’ Immigration Judges Union

Posted by Melissa Cruz

Immigration judges around the country are denouncing the Trump administration’s latest move to “disband and destroy” their union. 

The judges’ union has been openly critical of the administration’s immigration enforcement agenda. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a petition to the Federal Labor Relations Authority on Friday asking to revoke the National Association of Immigration Judges’ (NAIJ) union certification. Department officials claim that NAIJ members are “management officials” and therefore banned from collectively organizing. 

Judge Amiena Khan, vice president of NAIJ, says the step to decertify is a “a misguided effort to minimize our impact. We serve as a check and balance… and that’s why they are doing this to us.” 

Under their official capacity as DOJ employees, immigration judges cannot publicly speak out on issues that could be considered political. But representatives of the union can discuss—and criticize—DOJ policies on behalf of its members. They have done so since the union’s founding in 1971. 

But tensions between the department and immigration judges have only escalated in recent years. The union has even called on Congress to remove the immigration court system from the DOJ and establish it as an independent entity. 

In 2018, the Trump administration implemented case completion quotas as part of immigration judges’ performance reviews, compelling them to decide cases under strict deadlines. The quota was set in place to tackle the growing backlog of pending cases, which now totals more than 930,300. 

The quotas do not take the complexity of a case into consideration, nor the due process rights granted to all immigrants in court. Judges also risk termination if they do not complete the quota deadline. 

NAIJ called the move a “death knell for judicial independence in the immigration courts.” 

At the same time, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions stripped judges of their ability to manage their caseload by taking away a vital case management tool. He also made it more difficult for judges to grant asylum to domestic violence victims, as well as dismiss cases. 

These changes are amounting to a slower system with an increased backlog. Immigration judge and NAIJ President Ashley Tabaddor noted last month: 

“…It’s just a lot of chaos and counterproductive measures that undermine the ability of judges to use their expertise to help a case go through the system.” 

The call to dismantle the union appears to fall under that same goal of undermining and silencing immigration judges. 

NAIJ plans to respond to the administration’s petition once it receives an official notice from the Federal Labor Relations Authority. The agency will then likely investigate NAIJ to determine whether its certification can be revoked. 

The union once faced similar threats under President Bill Clinton and survived. For the sake of due process, the outcome will hopefully be the same this time too. 

 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4393-Immigration-judges-are-denouncing-disband-and-destroy-their-union.html

Rushing Immigration Court Cases Through ‘Rocket Dockets’ Deprives Families Of Due Process

In an attempt to rush through immigrant families’ court cases, the government began implementing “rocket dockets” in September 2018 for parents and children who had recently entered the United States together without authorization. The program is intended to discourage Central American families from coming to the United States by quickly deporting those already here. But by drastically shortening the timeline of the court process, the dockets prevent many asylum-seeking families from accessing a meaningful day in court. 

As of June 2019, over 56,000 cases were on these dockets in 10 cities around the country. 

Some immigrant families are only given a matter of weeks to find a lawyer and prepare their cases, and many attorneys report that expedited cases are scheduled too quickly to prepare well. This compressed timeline increases the chances that a family will have to navigate our complex immigration detention and removal system without an attorney. Those who go into court with no representation are much more likely to lose their cases .

Additionally, judges are under increasing pressure to close cases due to strict completion quotas . This adds more incentive to rush through cases at the expense of due process. 

While testifying before Congress in June, acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan claimed that the majority of families did not show up for court. But in fact, 86% of families released from detention attended their hearings from 2001 to 2016. 

Rocket dockets are unnecessary to ensure that people attend their immigration hearings. Immigrant families are generally eager to attend their hearings. These hearings are the only way for them to obtain permanent protections in the United States. The consequences of missing a hearing are also exceptionally high. Immigration judges are generally required to issue in absentiaremoval orders when someone fails to appear. 

Most families who miss court do so by accident. Often, the government has failed to notify them properly. In 2018, judges overturned 44 of 46 in absentia removal orders. The families in those cases had not received notice of their hearing or presented “extraordinary circumstances” for missing court. Thousands of hearing notices arrived after the hearing or to the incorrect address. Others included a date that doesn’t exist , a date on which the court was closed, or no date at all. 

There are meaningful and more effective alternatives available to these rocket dockets. 

To increase court appearances, the Trump administration could restart the Family Case Management Program (FCMP). This program provided individualized comprehensive help to families in five cities at a cost of only $38 per day for a family of two, compared to $592 for family detention . FCMP had a 99% success rate for compliance with court hearings and ICE appointments, but the government nevertheless ended it in June 2017. 

Other simple methods like text or email reminders about hearing dates have proven effective. 

The administration said it aims to discourage parents from traveling with children. To do this, they could reinstate the Central American Minors Program . This program allowed certain children with parents with legal status in the United States to apply as refugees. Hope of a legal path to the United States later may prevent parents from bringing them on the dangerous initial journey.

Instead of fast-tracking the court process, immigration courts should give these families the chance to prepare their cases. The opportunity to seek asylum is an American value—these programs would help restore that value. 

Source: immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4386-Rushing-Immigration-Court-Cases-Through.html

The Sad State of Atlanta’s Immigration Court

Written by Hilda Bonilla MARCH 10, 2017 in Immigration Courts

The Atlanta immigration court is known as one of the worst places to be in deportation proceedings. For years, the judges have been accused of abusive and unprofessional practices and the denial rate of asylum applications alone is 98 percent. 

The latest effort to document this phenomenon comes from Emory Law School and the Southern Poverty Law Center who sent a letter to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) this month regarding troubling practices in the Atlanta immigration courts. The letter was based on court observations by Emory Law students, who attended 31 proceedings between August 31 and October 14, 2016. 

Observers found that the immigration judges made prejudicial statements, demonstrated a lack of courtesy and professionalism and expressed significant disinterest toward respondents. In one hearing, an attorney argued that his client should be released from detention because he was neither a threat to society nor a flight risk. In rejecting the client’s bond request, the immigration judge reportedly compared an immigrant to a “person coming to your home in a Halloween mask, waving a knife dripping with blood” and asked the attorney if he would let him in. 

When the attorney disagreed with this comparison, the immigration judge responded that the “individuals before [him] were economic migrants and that they do not pay taxes.” Another immigration judge reportedly “leaned back in his chair, placed his head in his hands, and closed his eyes” for 23 minutes while the respondent described the murder of her parents and siblings during an asylum hearing. 

Other critical problems include disregard for legal arguments, frequent cancellation of hearings at the last minute, lack of individualized consideration of bond requests, and inadequate interpretation services for respondents who do not speak English. The observers also reported that immigration judges often refer to detention centers as “jails” and detainees as “prisoners,” undermining their dignity and humanity and suggesting that the IJs perceive detained immigrants as criminals. Compounding this problem, detained immigrants who appear in immigration court in Atlanta are required to wear jumpsuits and shackles. 

Many of these practices stand in stark contrast with the Executive Office of Immigration Reviews’ Ethics and Professionalism Guide for Immigration Judges, which state, among other things, that “an immigration judge… should not, in the performance of official duties, by word or conduct, manifest improper bias or prejudice” and that immigration judge should be “patient, dignified, and courteous, and should act in a professional manner towards all litigants, witnesses, lawyers, and other with whom the immigration judge deals in his or her capacity.” 

EOIR has been previously criticized for its lack of transparency on providing the public with information about the complaints brought up against immigration Judges, raising questions about the department’s willingness to hold its judges accountable. For these reasons, the American Immigration Lawyers Association submitted a Freedom of Information Act request on December 2016 requesting records on all complaints filed against immigration judges and how the complaints were resolved. The released records showed that many immigration judges have been accused of abusive behavior towards immigrants. 

The letter concludes with recommendations that, if implemented, have the potential to significantly improve the fairness of immigration court proceedings in one of the most hostile jurisdictions in the country. These recommendations include: investigating and monitoring immigration judges at the Atlanta immigration court, requiring immigration judges to record all courtroom proceedings to ensure transparency and accountability for prejudicial statements, investigating the frequent cancellation of hearings, and ensuring high-quality interpretation and availability of sample translations of forms. It is time for EOIR to take these recommendations seriously. 

Photo by Tim Evanson.

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com 
http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3560-Atlanta-Immigration-Court.html