06.11.09 Chicago Appleseed recommends sweeping immigration reforms
June 11, 2009 Volume: 155 Issue: 114
Chicago Appleseed recommends sweeping immigration reforms
By John Flynn Rooney
Law Bulletin staff writer
The process for the selection of immigration judges needs to be reformed to promote impartiality, according to a study released Wednesday.
The Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice and Appleseed, a not-for-profit that works to reform the justice system, issued the report titled, "Assembly Line Injustice."
The 44-page study also recommended ensuring court representation for immigrants, improving the accuracy of the proceedings through effective translation and cutting back on the use of videoconferencing for hearings.
"I think that this is a court system that is not living up to the standards of American justice," Malcolm C. Rich, executive director of Chicago Appleseed, said in a Thursday telephone interview. "Immigrants are being subjected to harassing and denigrating treatment, cannot understand what they're being asked or told, or have no assistance in navigating this process."
The study stemmed from more than 100 interviews of lawyers and experts along with in-depth discussions with immigration judges. Trained court observers also spent more than 100 hours observing immigration court proceedings in Chicago, Los Angeles and New York.
Staff and lawyers in Chicago, New York, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and Houston compiled the information last year and in 2009.
Elaine Komis, a spokeswoman for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, a Department of Justice agency that oversees immigration courts, said Thursday, "Most of the recommendations [in the Appleseed study] have been addressed in the 22 improvement measures that the the Executive Office ... has implemented or is currently implementing.''
The executive office said in a statement, "It is important to note that only a relatively low percentage of cases decided by the immigration judges and members of of the Board of Immigration Appeals are ever appealed, and of that, almost 90 percent are affirmed at the appellate court level nationwide. We think this speaks well for the performance of our agency."
The Appleseed study noted a dramatic rise in immigration cases during the past decade, without a corresponding increase in resources. The lack of resources resulted in such problems as a lack of impartiality among some judges and government lawyers to inadequate staffing.
For the past several years, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has regularly criticized immigration judges for their handling of cases and the process used for those matters.
Last month, a 7th Circuit panel described an immigration judge's handling of a foreign national's request to remain in the United States as "bizarre" and "disturbing." The three-judge panel revived the man's asylum application. Jonathan Castilho de Oliveira v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 07-3307.
Rich said the study began in Chicago because of problems with the immigration courts identified in 7th Circuit decisions.
"But, generally, the problems that are identified in the 7th Circuit decisions are not isolated to this jurisdiction," Rich added. "What we have discovered is the problems in the Chicago immigration court occur in all of the immigration courts that we studied."
The recommendations in the study are national in scope and not limited to a particular jurisdiction, according to Rich.
"We are recommending a variety of things which are inexpensive and some of which will cost money," Rich said.
The number of immigration judges needs to be increased and the judges need additional clerks and training, Rich said.
"If we're going to have a system that is worthy of the American justice system, we are going to have to put some additional resources into the immigration courts," Rich added. "These are often death penalty cases being handled with the resources of traffic court cases."
Other recommendations in the study include: enhancing and implementing the Department of Justice's Code of Conduct for immigration judges, improving the reliability and availability of court records, and implementing simultaneous translation so that immigrants know everything that is being said in court.
The study noted that a Department of Justice report detailed a systematic campaign by the previous administration to pack the immigration courts with Republicans who were "completely on the team."
For Department of Homeland Security lawyers, Appleseed suggested encouraging more prosecutorial discretion by reminding them "their mission is to enforce the law as written, not to deport every immigrant."
In the coming months, Appleseed will meet with government officials and other policymakers, along with media outlets throughout the nation to push for the reforms outlined in the study, Rich said.