Issues with Interpretation, Video-Teleconferencing, and more in Chicago’s Immigration Bond Court
In recent years, advocacy groups, including Chicago Appleseed and the Chicago Council of Lawyers (Council), have turned their attention towards criminal money bond reforms with much success. Now, Chicago Appleseed and the Council have also begun to focus on reform efforts in the immigration bond process. Theoretically the two systems should be fairly similar, however, in practice, they are drastically different, and therefore, there are differences in the potential reforms.
After Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detains a suspected noncitizen, ICE may release the person on their own recognizance without requiring the person pay a bond. If ICE does not release the person on their own recognizance, ICE will make an initial bond determination, either giving the detained person an amount to pay or denying bond altogether. If the person is denied bond by ICE or is given a bond amount that is too high to pay, the detained person can then request a hearing from the judge. At this hearing, the judge can either grant the person bond, change the amount of the bond, or deny the person bond – which would require the person to remain detained. If the person is granted bond, they must pay the entire bond amount, which can range from $1,500 to upwards of $25,000.
In 2018, about 30% of detained immigrants were able to secure an immigration custody decision that allowed them to be released upon paying bond. Of the detainees who are granted bond, about 1 in 5 of them will remain in custody until the end of their case, most likely because of their inability to pay their bond. In 2015, 86% of individuals released from detention returned for their court hearing. Additionally, of those detainees that were released, about 68% prevailed in their immigration court proceedings.
In order to better understand how the immigration bond process works in Chicago’s immigration courts, we have partnered with local law schools to have students conduct over 220 court observations. What their observations revealed were significant issues with interpretation and video teleconferencing (VTC) technology. But perhaps most importantly, volunteers observed a seemingly arbitrary process for setting a bond amount in the circumstances where it was granted. Unlike in criminal court, ability to pay did not always seem to be considered when granting a bond, which could lead to a person being detained simply for being poor. The median bond amount observed by our volunteers was $6,000, which must be paid in full to secure release. High bond amounts presumably keep 1 in 5 people who were granted bond detained for the entire duration of their case. This is additional pre-adjudication punishment that should not happen.
Arguably, bond is set at an amount that will ensure the person will continue to return to court for future hearings and not abscond. But when the national rate of released detainees returning for court is 86%, any amount of bond set would ensure a person will come back for their hearing. Detainees should not be forced to pay an arbitrary bond amount that is unreasonably high simply to ensure their return when they are overwhelmingly likely to return anyway.
There are many issues within our immigration court system, but one of the most pressing is ensuring that those in immigration proceedings are not continually punished by having to pay unreasonably high bonds or remain detained simply because they are poor. Chicago Appleseed and the Council will soon issue a report on the immigration bond hearing system as part of our ongoing advocacy. We will continue to advocate for immigration bond court reforms such as taking into account ability to pay and creating a more transparent system of determining a bond amount.
Brianna Hill is a third year law student at Loyola University Chicago School of Law. As a Collaboration for Justice Fellow with Chicago Appleseed and the Chicago Council of Lawyers, Brianna is working to improve the fairness and accountability of immigration courts in order to enhance access to justice for all immigrants in the court system.