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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PART FOUR Analysis Downtown Chicago Videoconference Courtroom: Seating area for the public, which includes a separate television for viewing individuals at the remote courtroom. (EOIR’s current courtroom, now located elsewhere, has no television for public view of the remote site.) 35
Observers witnessed problems caused or exacerbated by videoconferencing technology in nearly half of the observed hearings in the Chicago Court. Table 4.1: Problems Experienced by Immigrants During Videoconference Hearings Type of Problem Experienced Count (of 110 hearings) Access to Counsel Evidentiary/Testimonial Interpretation Equipment/Technological Total Hearings with 1 or more Problems* 14 12.7% 17 15.5% 15 13.6% 22 20% 49 44.5% 36 Percent of All Hearings * Because many immigrants experienced more than one type of problem during their hearings, the “total hearings with 1 or more problems” count is less than the combined row counts. It is important, as an initial matter, to note that substantial issues were often adjudicated in these hearings. In fact, almost 30% of the hearings we observed ended in the immigrant receiving an order of removal. We discuss our detailed findings in the following pages.
Page 1 and 2: Videoconferencing in Removal Hearin
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS Organizations 3 Acknowledg
Page 5 and 6: Lisa Colpoys Executive Director Ill
Page 7 and 8: informed of what had happened only
Page 9 and 10: • Nearly 30% of those who had an
Page 11 and 12: Videoconferencing is increasingly b
Page 13 and 14: observations with respect to catego
Page 15 and 16: PART ONE An Overview of Court Video
Page 17 and 18: does not consider to be “punishme
Page 19 and 20: angles or screen size will distort
Page 21 and 22: PART TWO The Chicago Immigration Co
Page 23 and 24: Immigration law is arcane, often de
Page 25 and 26: At the Master Calendar hearing, the
Page 27 and 28: judge, printing and delivering noti
Page 29 and 30: conclusion of the hearing, when the
Page 31 and 32: Observed Hearings Staff at the Lega
Page 33 and 34: The results from these monitoring s
Page 35: In total, we conducted two intervie
Page 39 and 40: Technical Problems at the Detention
Page 41 and 42: egularly witnessed attorneys and cl
Page 43 and 44: Table 4.2: Use of Interpreter and F
Page 45 and 46: The interpreter was located in the
Page 47 and 48: were likely to feel more emotionall
Page 49 and 50: Graph 4.1: Rate of Removal among de
Page 51 and 52: PART FIVE Recommendations Downtown
Page 53 and 54: held in one jurisdiction and the co
Page 55 and 56: • EOIR should issue regulations b
Page 57 and 58: listens to the judge and non-Englis
Page 59 and 60: In other administrative hearings, s
Page 61 and 62: CONCLUSION Mandatory detention and
Page 63 and 64: Inadmissibility Grounds: The provis
Page 65 and 66: I 3lqu.L sJu8~~!mmI JO U!~!~O JO sa
Page 67 and 68: x!puaddv H
Page 69 and 70: (JlA) ~U!~U~J~Juo~-~I~l O~P!A o~!lI
Page 71 and 72: °L .8 "6 aJoN) i.sIR!.IaJRW asaqJ
Page 73 and 74: x!puaddv :)
Page 75 and 76: OJ or ~U!AI~lJO pe~tsu! WOOl ~u!le~
Page 77 and 78: .z PUOH/Ap1 PUOWApotsn;) "~uoqcbl~
Page 79 and 80: 'I °2 'pJO:>aJ ~tp JOj suogeInd!}s
Page 81 and 82: '~dOpAU~ ~dB1 ~qJ U! s~dB1 He 3umnd
Page 83 and 84: x!puaddv
Page 85 and 86: NOI.L30aOmNI '1 ,{.n~ss~~u ~ ARw JR
Page 87 and 88:
.~ NOISO1:::>NO:::> "AI UJJOjU! }SO
Page 89 and 90:
(~weN) :]0 J~uew ~1p UI JOj hl~IOS
Page 91 and 92:
(~weN) :Jo J~uew ~q} °1 '::>S\!~ ~
Page 93 and 94:
,nIflOSSIW AJJ3 SVSNV)J : NOll. V30
Page 95 and 96:
:NOI.LdV::> DN.I.t\\OTIOd 3Hl. 3l.V
Page 97 and 98:
VO9O9 S!OUHII 'oge::>!\{:::> 'pAm u
Page 99 and 100:
86EB-LtE ('ZIE) :.19qUmN P'U!G s.J9
Page 101 and 102:
x!puaddv ~
Page 103 and 104:
. . . . . . .~Aoqe p::»{~~q~ S.J::
Page 105 and 106:
. h\~~}U! JO u0ge~ol pue ~}ea .""'n
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?