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

Immigration law is arcane, often depending on counter-intuitive distinctions. 36
Persons in removal proceedings, for instance, may be either “inadmissible” or
“deportable.” 37 “Inadmissible aliens” are persons attempting to enter the United States
for the first time or persons who have resided in the United States permanently but have
left the country temporarily and seek readmission. “Deportable aliens,” on the other
hand, are persons physically present in the United States who have been found in an
unlawful status, have applied for an immigration benefit and been denied, or have lawful
status here but have been charged with having violated the immigration laws in some
way. The grounds of inadmissibility and deportability are similar, but not identical. In
either case, DHS can detain both inadmissible and deportable persons pending a decision
on their removal. All removal hearings can be held by videoconferencing, regardless of
the seriousness of the alleged immigration law violation.
In general, persons may be removed for entering without inspection, lacking
proper immigration documentation, or overstaying a visa; for crimes that they have
committed; for being indigent if they are at risk of becoming a “public charge”; health-
related grounds, or for terrorism or other security concerns. 38
36 Of this trait, Judge Kaufman (who presided over the notorious Rosenberg trial) once remarked: “We
have had occasion to note the striking resemblance between some of the laws we are called upon to
interpret and King Minos’s labyrinth in ancient Crete. The Tax Laws and the Immigration and Nationality
Acts are examples we have cited of Congress’s ingenuity in passing statutes certain to accelerate the aging
process of judges. In this instance, Congress, pursuant to its virtually unfettered power to exclude or deport
natives of other countries, and apparently confident of the aphorism that human skill, properly applied, can
resolve any enigma that human inventiveness can create, has enacted a baffling skein of provisions for the
I.N.S. and courts to disentangle.” Lok v. INS., 548 F.2d 37, 38 (2d Cir. 1977).
37 Compare 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (general classes of aliens ineligible to receive visas and ineligible for
admission; waivers of inadmissibility) with 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (general classes of deportable aliens).
38 See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182, 1227.
22