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

we expected to collect useful information in two main areas: (a) the types and prevalence
of videoconferencing-related problems during hearings, and (b) the hearing outcomes.
We expected this information to allow us to assess the potential seriousness of any
problems related specifically to videoconferencing proceedings.
Observers were given questionnaires to complete for each hearing. 50 They
recorded basic facts (the immigrant’s name, country of citizenship, the name of his or her
lawyer, the alleged basis for removal, etc.). The monitoring sheet also asked observers to
note issues relating to the following categories: interpretation, technical quality, access to
counsel, and testimony and evidence. In each of these categories, observers were asked
to specify what problems, if any, had occurred. For example, with respect to technical
issues, there were checkboxes next to subcategories such as “equipment malfunction,”
“image freeze,” and “transmission delays.” Observers were asked to comment on any
problems that they reported. The monitoring sheet also included questions about whether
observers had noted any other issues related to hearing procedures, the judge’s use of
videoconferencing, and the outcome of the hearing. 51
but the substantial differences between cases of detained immigrants and cases of immigrants who are not
detained made comparisons between these two groups inappropriate.
50 See Hearing Monitoring Sheet, at Appendix G.
51 When recording hearing outcomes, some observers did not differentiate between decisions of removal
(deportation) and voluntary departure, nor did they differentiate between continuances for more Master
Calendar hearings or continuances for merits hearings. Consequently, we aggregated case outcomes of
removal and voluntary departure into one outcome category; we also aggregated continuances to Master
Calendar and merits hearings into another category.
31