#EOIR 33 | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

governmentagencynews · 2 years ago

Text

DETROIT — Officers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Operations Detroit Field Office apprehended six unlawfully present noncitizens convicted of sex offenses during a nationwide enforcement effort Oct. 22 through Nov. 4. The law enforcement action ERO conducted resulted in a total of 138 arrests nationally, including some with an executable final order of removal.“This operation, carried out by ERO Detroit deportation officers, is essential to public safety across Michigan and Ohio,” said Matthew Putra, acting field office director for ERO Detroit. “Our communities are safer now that these offenders who prey on the innocent and who commit acts of sexual violence are off our streets.” This enforcement operation was implemented to address unlawfully present noncitizens convicted of sex offenses. Cases amenable to federal criminal prosecution may be presented to the appropriate U.S. attorney’s office. Individuals listed here will remain in ICE custody pending immigration proceedings. Arrested in the Detroit Field Office area of responsibility, which includes Michigan and Ohio: A 33-year-old citizen of Bhutan in Cincinnati, convicted by the Butler County Court of Common Pleas of felony gross sexual imposition and misdemeanor sexual imposition. A 28-year-old citizen of Democratic Republic of the Congo in Grand Rapids, Michigan, convicted by the 17th Judicial Circuit Court for Kent County on two counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. A 40-year-old citizen of the Dominican Republic in Columbus, Ohio, convicted by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas of felony pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor. A 39-year-old citizen of Mexico in Grand Rapids, Michigan, convicted by the 17th Judicial Circuit Court for Kent County of possession of child sex abuse material and surveilling an unclothed person. A 37-year-old citizen of Mexico in Cincinnati, convicted by the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas of six counts of felony gross sexual imposition. A 24-year-old citizen of Cameroon in Troy, Michigan, convicted by the 6th Circuit Court in Pontiac, Michigan of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. ICE officers make enforcement decisions on a case-by-case basis in a professional and responsible manner, informed by their experience as law enforcement officials and in a way that best protects against the greatest threats to the homeland. ICE officers apply prosecutorial discretion when making apprehension and removal decisions, as do law enforcement officers in different agencies and offices throughout the country. Noncitizens placed into removal proceedings receive their legal due process from federal immigration judges in the immigration courts, which are administered by the Executive Office for Immigration Review. EOIR is an agency within the U.S. Department of Justice and is separate from the Department of Homeland Security and ICE. Immigration judges in these courts make decisions based on the merits of each individual case. ICE officers carry out the removal decisions federal immigration judges make. In fiscal year 2021, ERO arrested 12,025 individuals with aggravated felony convictions. Offenses associated with noncitizens arrested in FY 2021 included 1,506 homicide related offenses, 3,415 sexual assaults, 19,549 assaults, 2,717 robberies and 1,063 kidnappings. ICE’s ERO directorate upholds U.S. immigration law at, within and beyond our borders. ERO's work is critical to the enforcement of immigration law against those who present a danger to our national security, are a threat to public safety, or who otherwise undermine the integrity of our immigration system. ERO operations target public safety threats, such as convicted criminal noncitizens and gang members, as well as individuals who have otherwise violated our nation's immigration laws, including those who illegally reentered the country after being removed and immigration fugitives ordered removed by federal immigration judges.

ERO deportation officers assigned to Interpol also assist in targeting and apprehending foreign fugitives or Fugitive Arrest and Removal cases who are wanted for crimes committed abroad and who are now at-large in the United States. ERO manages all aspects of the immigration enforcement process, including identification and arrest, domestic transportation, detention, bond management, and supervised release, including alternatives to detention. In addition, ERO removes noncitizens ordered removed from the U.S. to more than 170 countries around the world. Members of the public can report crimes and/or suspicious activity by dialing 866-347-2423 or completing the online tip form. Learn more about ICE’s mission to increase public safety in your community on Twitter @ERODetroit.

0 notes

yougottalettheeren · 6 years ago

Text

Board of Immigration Appeals | Form Eoir 29 – Form Eoir 28 – Form Eoir 33 – YouTube

youtube

from via Board of Immigration Appeals | Form Eoir 29 – Form Eoir 28 – Form Eoir 33 – YouTube

#Board of Immigration Appeals | Form Eoir 29 – Form Eoir 28 – Form Eoir 33 – YouTube #Attorneys &

0 notes

myattorneyusa · 6 years ago

Photo

EOIR Swears in 23 New Immigration Judges

On August 16, 2018, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) announced that it had sworn in 23 new immigration judges [PDF version]. With the 23 new immigration judges, the immigration judge corps numbers 351. Furthermore, the EOIR stated that it plans to add at least 75 more immigration judges in fall 2018.

The EOIR attributed the large number of new immigration judges to Attorney General Jeff Sessions' decision to streamline the hiring process [see blog]. The EOIR states that as a result of the new hiring processes, the 23 immigration judges recently sworn in were hired in a process taking approximately 266 days, significantly lower than the average of 742 days for new immigration judge hires in 2017.

The 23 new immigration judges will serve on 15 immigration courts across the United States. Of note, the New York City Immigration Court will welcome four new immigration judges [see section]. The following is the list of immigration courts welcoming new judges:

Baltimore (Maryland)

Chicago (Illinois)

Cleveland (Ohio)

El Paso (Texas)

Falls Church (Virginia)

Harlingen (Texas)

LaSalle (Louisiana)

Los Angeles (California)

Miami (Florida)

New York City (New York)

Oakdale (Louisiana)

Pearsall (Texas)

San Antonio (Texas)

Ulster (New York)

Below, we will list the new immigration judges and provide brief biographical summaries for each. We have sorted the immigration judges by the immigration courts on which they serve, with the courts listed in alphabetical order. The EOIR released the list of new immigration judges along with biographical details in a separate document [PDF version].

To read about other recent immigration judge investitures, please see our index article [see index].

Baltimore Immigration Court: Immigration Judge David C. Koelsch

IJ David C. Koelsch began hearing cases at the Baltimore Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to beginning his service on the immigration bench, IJ Koelsch had experience in government and academia, with both relating to immigration. From 2017 to 2018, Koelsch was a supervisory asylum officer with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in Arlington, Virgina. From 2015 to 2017, he was an appeals officer with the USCIS's Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). Before entering government service, Koelsch was a law professor at Detroit Mercy School of Law and served as director of its Immigration Law Clinic. He had previously been an attorney in private practice. Immigration Judge Koelsch has a law degree from Catholic University.

Baltimore Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Zakia Mahasa

IJ Zakia Mahasa began hearing cases at the Baltimore Immigration Court in August 2018. She served as a magistrate judge in the Maryland Circuit Court for Baltimore from 1997 to 2018. Prior to her service as a magistrate, Mahasa was an attorney for the House of Ruth domestic violence legal clinic and an attorney with the Legal Aid Bureau of Maryland. She has a law degree from the University of Maryland, Carey School of Law.

Chicago Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Patrick M. McKenna

IJ Patrick M. McKenna began hearing cases at the Chicago Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to being hired as an IJ, McKenna served as an attorney for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from 2006 to 2018 in Chicago and Washington D.C.. McKenna had previously been a state prosecutor from 2002 to 2006 after working in private practice. He has a law degree from the University of Notre Dame Law School.

Chicago Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Kaarina Salovaara

IJ Kaarina Salovaara began hearing cases at the Chicago Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to beginning service on the immigration bench, Salovaara had a long career as a prosecutor, serving as an assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois for 27 years, from 1991 to 2018. From 1981 to 1991, Salovaara worked in private practice. She had previously been a law clerk for Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Immigration Judge Salovaara has a law degree from the University of Virginia Law School.

Cleveland Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Jonathan W. Owens

Immigration Judge Jonathan W. Owens began hearing cases at the Cleveland Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to beginning service on the immigration bench, Owen was an administrative law judge (ALJ) manager from 2014 to 2018. He was an ALJ for the State of Michigan Licensing and Regulatory Affairs in Detroit from 2007 to 2014. He had previously worked in the Office of Child Support for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. Immigration Judge Owens has a law degree from Michigan State University, Detroit College of Law.

El Paso Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Nathan L. Herbert

Immigration Judge Nathan L. Herbert began hearing cases at the El Paso Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to beginning his service on the immigration bench, Herbert worked in several important immigration-related positions at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). From 2015 to 2018, Herbert was an attorney with ICE in San Antonio, Texas. From 2009 to 2015, he served in a similar capacity with ICE in Denver. From 2008 to 2009, he was an attorney advisor with EOIR in Denver. Immigration Judge Herbert has a law degree from Michigan State University College of Law.

Falls Church Immigration Adjudication Center: Immigration Judge George J. Ward Jr.

Immigration Judge George J. Ward Jr. began hearing cases at the Falls Church Immigration Adjudication Center in August 2018. IJ Ward has extensive experience in as a government attorney for various immigration components of the DHS and the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). From 1999 to 2018, he served in various capacities as an ICE attorney in both Virginia and Washington D.C. His most recent position was as deputy chief in the Office of Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, from 2012 to 2018. Prior to his work in the federal government, Ward was an assistant district attorney for the Nassau County District Attorney's Office in Mineola, New York. He has a law degree from St. John's University School of Law.

Harlingen Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Daniel B. Gilbert

Immigration Judge Daniel B. Gilbert began hearing cases at the Harlingen Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to beginning his service on the immigration bench, IJ Gilbert served for six years as an assistant chief counsel for ICE, both in Harlingen, Texas, and Baltimore, Maryland. He had previously been a staff attorney with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 2009 to 2011. Immigration Judge Gilbert has a law degree from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

LaSalle Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Angela Munson

Immigration Judge Angela Munson began hearing cases at the LaSalle Immigration Court in August 2018. Before becoming an immigration judge, Munson complied extensive experience as a prosecutor. From 1998 to 2018, Munson worked as an assistant U.S. Attorney in various capacities in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia. From 1994 to 1998, she was a local prosecutor as an assistant district attorney with the Office of the Fulton County District Attorney. From 2011 to 2012, she served as a legal advisor to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq. Immigration Judge Munson has a law degree from Tulane Law School.

Los Angeles Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Robert A. Fellrath

Immigration Judge Robert A. Fellrath began hearing cases at the Los Angeles Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to beginning service on the immigration bench, IJ Fellrath was an assistant U.S. Attorney for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Tucson, Arizona, from 2008 to 2018. From 2007 to 2008, he was an assistant federal public defender. From 2000 to 2018, Fellrath served with the Judge Advocate General's Corps in the U.S. Army. He has a law degree from the University of Notre Dame.

Los Angeles Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Natalie B. Huddleston

Immigration Judge Natalie B. Huddleston began hearing cases at the Los Angeles Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to becoming an immigration judge, Huddleston's experience came primarily as a prosecutor. She was a federal prosecutor in Phoenix from 2014 to 2018, and a state prosecutor in various offices in Arizona from 2004 to 2014. She has a law degree from the University of Notre Dame.

Los Angeles Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Nancy E. Miller

Immigration Judge Nancy E. Miller began hearing cases at the Los Angeles Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to becoming an immigration judge, Miller had 33 years of experience in private law practice from 1985 to 2018. She has a law degree from Southwestern University School of Law.

Los Angeles Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Jason R. Waterloo

Immigration Judge Jason R. Waterloo began hearing cases at the Los Angeles Immigration Court in August 2018. From 2014 to 2018, now-IJ Waterloo worked as an assistant chief counsel for ICE in Los Angeles. From 2008 to 2014, he was an assistant district attorney with the Berks County District Attorney's Office in Reading, Pennsylvania. He has a law degree from the West Virginia University College of Law.

Miami Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Michael G. Walleisa

Immigration Judge Michael G. Walleisa began hearing cases at the Miami Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to becoming an immigration judge, Walleisa worked as an assistant U.S. attorney in various capacities with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida in Miami. Notably, he was an assistant U.S. attorney with the National Security Section from 2002 to 2018. From 1985 to 1989, he was a state prosecutor in Dade County, Florida. He has a law degree from Temple University School of Law.

New York City Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Lena Golovnin

Immigration Judge Lena Golovnin began hearing cases at the New York City Immigration Court in August 2018. She has extensive experience as a federal lawyer in the immigration context. From 2010 to 2018, now-IJ Golovnin was assistant chief counsel for the Office of Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in Manhattan. She was an attorney advisor for EOIR in New York from 2009 to 2010, and in San Antonio from 2008 to 2009. She has a law degree from Thomas M. Cooley Law School.

In a special note, we at The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC, have had nothing but good experiences dealing with Immigration Judge Golovnin when she was an ICE attorney. We wish her the best of luck in her difficult new job, and fully expect that she will prove to be an excellent immigration judge.

New York City Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Cynthia Gordon

Immigration Judge Cynthia Gordon began hearing cases at the New York City Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to becoming an immigration judge, IJ Gordon served as assistant chief counsel for the Office of Chief Counsel, ICE, DHS, in Manhattan. Before her work for ICE, she was a state and local prosecutor, working for the New York Attorney General's Office from 2001 to 2007, and as an assistant district attorney in Manhattan from 1994 to 2001. She has a law degree from Cornell Law School.

New York City Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Howard C. Hom

Immigration Judge Howard C. Hom began hearing cases at the New York City Immigration Court in August 2018. IJ Hom has one of the more varied resumes of the 23 new immigration judges. From 2016 to 2018, he worked as an immigration attorney in private practice. From 2009 to 2016, he served as an ALJ for the California Unemployment Insurance Review Board. IJ Hom worked in private practice from 1981 to 2009. From 1976 to 1981, Hom was a general and trial attorney with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service. He has a law degree from Loyola Law School.

New York City Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Michael G. McFarland

Immigration Judge Michael G. McFarland began hearing cases at the New York City Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to becoming an immigration judge, McFarland served as assistant chief counsel and then deputy chief counsel for ICE in Manhattan from 2011 to 2018. Previously, he was a staff attorney for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 2007 to 2011. He has a law degree from New York University School of Law.

Oakdale Immigration Court: Immigration Judge W. Scott Laragy

Immigration Judge W. Scott Laragy began hearing cases at the Oakdale Immigration Court in August 2018. IJ Laragly was counsel to the direct of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), which is a component of the Department of Justice (DOJ), from 2017 to 2018. He had been legislative counsel for the EOUSA from 2012 to 2017. From 2007 to 2017, IJ Laragy was an assistant U.S. attorney for the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Orleans. Laragy is also a military lawyer in the Judge Advocate General's (JAG) Corps with the U.S. Navy. He was on active duty from 1995 to 2007 and is currently serving in the naval reserves. Immigration Judge Laragy has a law degree from Loyola University New Orleans.

Otero Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Kathleen French

Immigration Judge Kathleen French began hearing cases at the Otero Immigration Court in August 2018. IJ French has extensive experience in the federal immigration context. From 2000 to 2018, she was an assistant chief counsel and deputy chief counsel for ICE in several locations. She worked as a judicial law clerk with EOIR from 1999 to 2000, and with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1997 to 1999. IJ French has also been a military lawyer. From 1998 to 2013, she served in several reserve-duty roles in the U.S. Army JAG corps. Prior to earning her law degree, from 1982 to 1994, she served on active duty in the United States Coast Guard as a shipboard law enforcement officer. Immigration Judge French has a law degree from George Mason University.

Pearsall Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Stuart D. Alcorn

Immigration Judge Stuart D. Alcorn began hearing cases at the Pearsall Immigration Court in August 2018. IJ Alcorn has experience as a federal immigration lawyer and as a military lawyer. From 2008 to 2018, he served as an assistant chief counsel for ICE in San Antonio. From 2008 to 2017, he served as a military defense attorney in the JAG corps, U.S. Army Reserve. From 2005 to 2008, he was a military prosecutor and command judge advocate in the U.S. Army. Immigration Judge Alcorn has a law degree from the Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University.

San Antonio Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Eric J. Tijerina

Immigration Judge Eric J. Tijerina began hearing cases at the San Antonio Immigration Court in August 2018. Prior to becoming an immigration judge, Tijerina was a policy analyst with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) from 2015 to 2018. He worked in various immigration-related capacities prior to serving as a policy analyst at USCIS. From 2014 to 2015, Tijerina was the associate director of the Immigrant Children's Legal Program of the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants in Arlington, Virginia. From 2010 to 2014, he was the director of legal programs at the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services in San Antonio, Texas. From 2008 to 2010, he was supervising attorney for the St. Mary's University School of Law Immigration Clinic in San Antonio. From 2006 to 2008, Tijerina was the lead attorney at the Legal Orientation Program of the Political Asylum Project of Austin, Texas. He has a law degree from St. Mary's School of Law.

Ulster Immigration Court: Immigration Judge Nelson A. Vargas-Padilla

Immigration Judge Nelson A. Vargas-Padilla began hearing cases at the Ulster Immigration Court in August 2018. IJ Vargas-Padilla worked extensively as an attorney for both DHS and the former INS before becoming an immigration judge. From 2016 to 2018, Vargas-Padilla was litigation and national security counsel for USCIS in Washington D.C. From 2015 to 2016, he worked for the USCIS Refugee Affairs Division in Kenya and Malaysia. From 2013 to 2016, he was transformation counsel for the USCIS's Transformation Law Division in Washington D.C. From 2009 to 2013, he was deputy chief counsel for ICE in Baltimore, after having served as senior attorney from 2007 to 2009 and assistant chief counsel from 2001 to 2007. From 1996 to 2001, Vargas-Padilla was an attorney advisor for the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). He has a law degree from the University of Buffalo School of Law.

Please visit the nyc immigration lawyers website for further information. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC focuses vast segment of its practice on immigration law. This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.

Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

#immigration #immigrants #US immigration

0 notes

theconservativebrief · 7 years ago

Link

After several months of experimenting with punitive policies toward families coming to the US without papers — including separating thousands of children from their parents to detain and prosecute parents — the Trump administration is reluctantly returning to a practice it pejoratively calls “catch and release”: releasing families from immigration detention and allowing them to live in the US while they wait for their asylum claims to be adjudicated.

President Donald Trump and other top administration officials have spent months railing against the release of immigrant families as a recipe for widespread lawlessness. They claim that once a family is released from immigration, they’ll simply abscond into the US, skipping their appointed court dates, to live as unauthorized immigrants. The administration makes it seem like this is a deliberate strategy — a known end-run around existing immigration law that takes advantages of extra protections afforded to children, families, and asylum-seekers.

But a new study, compiled by a pair of legal advocacy groups, shows that isn’t the case, and that the administration doesn’t have to choose between separating immigrant families (or detaining them indefinitely) and making sure they show up to court. The administration has identified a real problem, but misunderstands, or misrepresents, the cause.

The study confirms that families who cross into the US without papers often miss their court dates, but offers suggestive qualitative evidence — collected from families who were contacted by attorneys and notified that they’d missed their court dates — that many families aren’t deliberately absconding at all.

They’re trying to stay in the system. It’s just that the system makes it too hard for them, then punishes them with an order of deportation when they fail. The people whom the Trump administration is painting as lawless “absconders” are often just lost, confused, and overwhelmed families in a strange land, working as hard as they can to be allowed to stay here but faced with legal and bureaucratic obstacles that make missing a court date an understandable outcome.

If the Trump administration is genuinely concerned about making sure asylum seekers stay in the legal process as long as they’re in the US, this is great news. It shows that they didn’t really need to use punitive tactics like separation and indefinite detention to accomplish that goal. And it shows that, now that they’ve started releasing families together again, they can devote their energy to smoothing the bureaucratic obstacles that are the real heart of the problem.

On the other hand, if the Trump administration continues to paint “catch and release” as a recipe for widespread lawlessness instead of trying to help families go through the system the right way, it will indicate that they are more interested in punishment than they are with ensuring the legal process gets followed.

Most people who are caught entering the US without papers can be deported quickly without a court hearing. But, to the apparent chagrin of President Trump, there are special protections for some groups, including asylum-seekers, to give them a chance to prove they’re eligible for legal status in the US.

Since the road to legal status runs through the incredibly backlogged immigration court system, that can take years, leaving the government with the question of what to do with migrants while their court cases are pending.

The way Trump tells it, any migrant who gets released from immigration detention before her court case is resolved will immediately escape into the US and evade detection by the authorities. “We release them. They go someplace into our country. They’re supposed to come back within two or three years for a court case, but nobody ever comes back,” Trump told a West Virginia crowd in April.

That’s somewhat overstated, but it doesn’t mean the problem isn’t real.

In fiscal year 2016, the last year for which full statistics are available, slightly more than a quarter of all cases decided in immigration courts ended with an order of deportation issued because the defendant hadn’t shown up to court (known as an in absentia order).

There aren’t separate in absentia statistics just for asylum-seekers caught entering the US. But statistics suggest that relatively few of the people who say they’re seeking asylum when they’re caught by a Border Patrol agent end up seeing the process of applying for asylum through to the end.

Less than 40 percent of people who pass the initial screening interview for asylum submit a written asylum application, which is a necessary step in the process even though they’ve passed the interview and gotten assigned a court hearing. (To the Trump administration, this is proof that the other 60 percent of people were just lying about being persecuted as an excuse to sneak into the US.)

The worst group for absenteeism appears to be families.

Two legal advocacy groups, CLINIC (the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.) and ASAP (the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project of the Urban Justice Center), used the Freedom of Information Act to get data about all cases involving “adults with children” in the immigration court system from July 18, 2014, to November 2016 — the aftermath of the spring-summer 2014 wave of Central American children and families entering the US.

That data showed that more than 70 percent of families’ cases decided during that time ended with in absentia deportation orders. For comparison, during fiscal years 2015 and 2016 — i.e,. between October 2014 and September 2016 — the in absentia rate across all cases was only 26 percent.

But just because the Trump administration is correct that people not showing up to court is a problem doesn’t mean it’s correct about why it’s happening.

And the data collected by CLINIC and ASAP suggests that families aren’t skipping out because they know their asylum cases are doomed. Oo the contrary, they end up dooming their asylum cases by missing their court dates.

Among all immigrants, in absentia cases made up only about a third of deportation orders. Among families, according to the new data, in absentia cases accounted for 83 percent of all removal orders.

Meanwhile, families were much more likely to win cases in which they did show up to court than other immigrants. During the period covered in the new report, 83 percent of families’ cases ended with removal orders. But if you take out the removal orders issued in absentia — and look only at cases where families did show up to court — only 40 percent of cases ended with a family ordered deported.

That’s a much bigger swing than immigration cases overall saw: In fiscal years 2015 and 2016, 70 percent of all cases ended in removal orders, but taking out the in absentia orders drops the removal rate to 59 percent.

The CLINIC/ASAP report says that during this time, asylum screening interviews in family detention centers had a higher approval rate than screening interviews among other border-crossers who claimed a fear of persecution (88 percent versus 77 percent). And the hearings most commonly skipped aren’t the final hearings at which an immigrant’s fate is set; they’re the initial hearings, known as “master calendar” hearings, in which the date for a full hearing is set months or years in the future. (The CLINIC report doesn’t offer data to prove that these are the most commonly missed hearings, but that characterization is consistent with other analyses.)

Most suggestively, families that had been in detention at some point, even if they had since been released, were more likely to show up to court than families who’d never been detained. They were also more likely to have legal representation, which CLINIC attributes to the fact that families in detention are often connected to pro bono attorneys and other resources that they can retain even after they get out.

The conclusion drawn by the advocacy groups is that people with attorneys were more likely to figure out how to make their court dates, and those without lawyers were at risk of getting swallowed up by the system.

In 2015, CLINIC and ASAP started reaching out to families released from detention to remind them of their court dates.

“ASAP and CLINIC consistently encountered families who had missed their hearings for several reasons, mostly outside of the families’ control,” the report says.

Some families missed their court dates because of confusion, often exacerbated by the effects of trauma from their home countries or other mental illness. Or because they worried that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would arrest them if they showed up to court. That didn’t happen much under the Obama administration, when this report was conducted, but ICE has since done this to witnesses in criminal cases (and even victims seeking restraining orders) in some cases under Trump.

But in a lot of cases, a parent thought she was doing everything right and it just wasn’t enough.

If someone moves while their case is pending, the report says, they are “expected to update their address with up to five different entities—the immigration court, USCIS, ICE OCC, ICE ERO, and ISAP—using three different mediums—Form EOIR-33, Form AR-11, and oral or written notice.” That’s a lot of paperwork for someone without an attorney, especially someone whose English skills or general literacy may not be great. And immigrants may not even know they have to go through all that.

In one case CLINIC and ASAP encountered, a parent changed her address with ICE, but ICE didn’t tell her that she had to update it separately with the immigration court. So she missed the notice of her hearing date, and then missed the hearing. Another parent was told after she moved that she had a hearing in July 2016, only to discover too late that she’d missed a hearing she didn’t know about in August 2015.

In a third case in the CLINIC report, a mother was forced to move out of an abusive household in California but was unable to get the immigration judge to move her hearing to her new home in Virginia:

“As the hearing date neared without receiving a decision, she made multiple calls and left numerous messages with the immigration court in California, desperately seeking to know the status of her second motion to move her case to Virginia. Unfortunately, the immigration court did not transfer the case in time and Camila, unable to afford last-minute plane tickets, missed her hearing.”

In some cases that CLINIC and ASAP found, particular people were to blame: immigration judges who refused to move hearings, ineffective or fraudulent attorneys who got notices of court dates but simply never told their clients. But often, the advocates blame “structural and bureaucratic obstacles” — a system that is simply too complicated to allow families who want to show up to court to successfully do it.

When these obstacles are discovered, it’s often possible to fix the problem. ASAP and CLINIC challenged 46 in absentia removal orders, on behalf of 22 families, by the end of 2017. Ninety-six percent of the time they successfully got the government to reopen the family’s case.

These are probably the most compelling cases the advocates found. But they are a strong indication that at least some of the people who have been ordered deported because they didn’t show up to court are, in fact, trying to go through the asylum process the right way.

The Trump administration could adopt this as a premise of its asylum policy. It could use more discretion in figuring out which families are particularly likely to abscond, and focus enforcement resources on them, while making sure families who wanted to apply for asylum got the information they needed to do it outside of detention.

The administration could do a better job of coordinating between agencies so that migrants only needed to update their addresses once. It could adopt a case-management approach that assumed that people are trying to get through the system the right way and simply need a little help navigating it.

The Trump administration has not done that so far. It has instead adopted a blanket approach that assumes that any given family will evade the law if given the chance. It’s fighting in court to keep families under physical control in detention for as long as their cases take, while pressuring judges to speed up those cases so they can be deported more quickly, rather than ever getting released. And, when it fails, the administration is claiming that lawlessness is inevitable.

That’s the choice the administration has made. It’s the most punitive option available to them. It’s not necessarily the one best suited to the problem.

Original Source -> A new study blows up Trump’s “catch-and-release” myth

via The Conservative Brief

#IFTTT #The Conservative Brief

0 notes