Videoconferencing in Removal Hearings: A Case Study of the ...

observations with respect to categories including language interpretation, technical
quality, access to counsel, and presentation of evidence. Although we attempted to
observe hearings at both ends – in the immigration court and at the remote site where the
detained immigrants are being held – the office of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) strongly “recommended” to us that non-attorneys not attempt to view
hearings at the remote site, since they might be “turned away due to a lack of space.” 8
To supplement our data, we interviewed immigration practitioners about their
experience with videoconference hearings. We asked EOIR for permission to interview
Immigration Judges. EOIR declined our request but did respond to a set of written
questions we submitted concerning videoconferencing. We also attempted to interview
detained immigrants but with little success. Because immigrants have no right to
appointed counsel, many proceed through their removal hearing unrepresented. For this
reason, we believed it was important to speak to immigrants directly about their
experiences with this new system. It was difficult to contact detainees because they
cannot receive incoming phone calls, and they can only place outgoing calls collect. 9 In
early February 2005, we sent letters to individual detainees at the Kenosha County
Detention Center (most of whom had asked to meet with us), advising them that we
7 See EOIR IMMIGRATION JUDGE BENCHBOOK, Ch. 2 (2001) at Appendix C; EOIR, Interim Operating
Policies and Procedures Memorandum No. 04-06: Hearings Conducted Through Telephone and Video
Conference (August 18, 2004) at Appendix D.
8 Appendix E, Letter of October 6, 2004 from Deborah Achim, ICE Field Office Director for Detention
and Removal, to Geoffrey Heeren. ICE is responsible for the detention and removal of non-citizens. Since
the inception of videoconference proceedings in Chicago, ICE’s holding facility in Broadview, Illinois, has
been designated as the “remote” facility for videoconference hearings.
9 Detention facilities within the jurisdiction of the Chicago Immigration Court also have a phone system
for detainees to place free calls to providers of free legal services and consulates, called the “Pro Bono
Platform.” This platform has been functioning inconsistently since its installation, and much of the staff at
certain facilities remains unaware, as of the writing of this study, of its existence.
12