08.02.05 Report Criticizes Video Links For Deportation Hearings
Report criticizes video links for deportation hearings
Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Volume: 151 Issue: 150
By BILL MYERS Law Bulletin staff writer
02 August 2005
Conducting deportation hearings via closed-circuit television has deprived some immigrants of the right to counsel, put them at the mercy of fluttering technology and has disadvantaged those who don't speak English, a new report claims.
The Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice and the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago sat in on more than 110 videoconferenced deportation hearings in the summer and fall of 2004.
In a study released on Tuesday, the groups found that there were technical problems in one out of every five cases, problems ''related to access to counsel'' in one out of every six cases, and translation problems in three out of 10 cases.
''Compounding these errors, the immigrants who we observed had little chance to speak or ask questions, were unable to communicate easily with their attorneys and typically were informed of what had happened only at the conclusion of the hearing,'' the study's authors wrote.
Hispanics who did not speak English were hit hardest, according to the study. Seventy-six percent of non-English-speaking Hispanics were deported at their hearings, as opposed to 46 percent of English-speaking Hispanics.
The hearings that the Appleseed Fund and LAF observed were part of the master calendar of the Chicago division of the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR).
At such hearings, immigration judges determine whether the ''removal'' proceeding was properly commenced, examine the charges against the immigrant, schedule future hearings and, in some cases, order the immigrants to be deported.
The Chicago division of EOIR is located downtown, but immigrants were detained in centers in the suburbs and their hearings broadcast on closed-circuit television.
According to the study, EOIR, a branch of the Justice Department, has never studied the efficiency of videoconferencing.
Officials at EOIR did not respond to requests for comments.
The study's authors said, given the frequency of technical problems, it would be hard to argue that the videoconferencing system unclogged the immigration system.
The Appleseed Fund and LAF called for a moratorium on videoconferenced deportation hearings so that the government can improve technology; study due process problems; and train lawyers, judges and staff to maximize the technology.
''In light of how much is at stake in removal cases, significant changes need to be made before videoconferencing can be an acceptable substitute for in-person hearings,'' the study's authors wrote.
Susan R. Fortino-Brown, a former chair of the Chicago chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the study's findings were similar to her own.
Fortino-Brown, who heads up her own immigration law firm, said many immigration court decisions rely on judicial discretion. Videoconferencing interferes with judicial discretion, she said.
''A judge always has to make a decision on discretionary relief. And many times, the question comes down to, 'do I believe this guy?''' Fortino-Brown said.
With videoconferences, ''it's very difficult to get a sense of the individual's demeanor and affect,'' Fortino-Brown said.
''You can never experience even the eye contact that's so important when an immigration judge is assessing an individual's credibility. That's what's so very missing in these hearings,'' she said.
But Ira H. Mehlman disagreed.
Mehlman is the spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based Federation for American Immigration Reform, a lobbying group determined to reduce immigration into the U.S.
Mehlman dismissed Tuesday's report as grandstanding.
''If there was a denial of due process here, there already would have been a court case. These advocacy groups wouldn't have just issued a report,'' he said.
"Even if there were systemic problems with videoconferencing, they are the direct result of the immigration bar clogging of the system," Mehlman said.
''You also have a situation here where the immigration bar has basically tied the system up in knots. They have created some of the situations that require videoconferencing - because the system is so overwhelmed,'' he said.
The report, ''Videoconferencing in Removal Hearings: A Case Study of the Chicago Immigration Court,'' is available at www.chicagoappleseed.org.