The Problem With Immigration Courts
For many immigrants in the United States the Immigration Courts are the only way for their case to be heard and the only way for them to be granted any sort of legal status. Recently, however, the 208 immigration judges currently practicing are being brought under scrutiny, as they struggle to complete 350,000 cases a year amid an immigration debate that promises to increase their caseload significantly.
Many organizations have conducted studies of the immigration courts only to be shown shocking results. For example, denial rates of asylum cases from the 208 judges ranged from a low of 10% to a high of 98%. There has also been extreme judge to judge disparity, and the results of a person's case most likely depends on which immigration judge he is assigned to. Some judges approve cases in so few instances that attorneys actually advise their clients to move to another state in order to obtain a different immigration judge.
Critics of the immigration court system often call it unfair and inefficient. A closer look at the court system, however, can provide an explanation for this. According to a New York Times article, in order to maintain any sort of orderly schedule, New York judges schedule 30 to 70 cases at a time, hold 4 contested hearings a day and decide more than 15 cases a week, all without law clerks, bailiffs, stenographers or enough competent lawyers. Many people agree that it is simply impossible for a judge to make findings of fact and conclusions of law under these circumstances.
After a decision is made by an immigration judge either the alien or attorney for the government may choose to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. However, with new reforms set into place by former Attorney General John Ashcroft board membership was cut to 11 from 23 and tight deadlines were set in order to reduce a large backlog. Since then it has become unlikely that a case on appeal will be adequately reviewed, and there is even less of a chance that a decision of an immigration judge will be overturned.
Additionally, in 2002, Department of Justice issued a series of "Procedural Reforms" for the administrative court that reviews the decisions of immigration judges. This was also done in order to decrease the backlog of immigration cases that were pending. As a result of this reform, the Board of Immigration Appeals has issued thousands of single-member decisions (as opposed to the traditional 3-member panel decisions) without any written opinion. Before the changes were instituted, 1 in 4 appeals was granted. Now only 1 in 10 is granted. This has profound consequences for immigrants and their families.
Several organizations such as The Rights Working Group and Human Rights First have been working diligently to make changes to the courts. Although unfortunate, unless significant changes are made to the current immigration court system and to the Board of Immigration appeals, it is unlikely that any of these problems will be resolved.
