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

epresentatives. The observers witnessed problems in about one in six hearings with
represented immigrants. 58
The attorneys we interviewed explained advocate-client communication in the old
system to show how videoconference hearings have made communication more difficult.
Because removal cases for this region (Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin) are heard in
Chicago, immigrants routinely seek assistance from Chicago-based attorneys. ICE
detains immigrants in distant facilities, however, so it is rare for Chicago lawyers to
consult with their clients in person before the hearing. Under the pre-videoconferencing
system, Chicago attorneys could meet with their clients in ICE visitation rooms at the
courthouse immediately before the hearing began. Because ICE now brings detained
immigrants to a locked facility in suburban Broadview, rather than to court in downtown
Chicago, attorneys are unable to speak privately with their clients before the actual
hearing. One attorney explained, “No [detainee] is kept near an attorney. My client is
being held in Kenosha [Wisconsin, about 1.5 hours from Chicago], but some people are
held 3 to 4 hours away. Representation is becoming more and more difficult.”
Thus, the first impediment to sufficient and proper representation, once counsel is
obtained, is that videoconferencing makes it more difficult for an attorney to consult with
the client before the hearing.
The second common complaint is that videoconferencing makes any private
consultation during the hearing impossible. Only one attorney reported being able to
speak to the immigrant by seeking time to consult and asking the judge to clear the court.
The vast majority of lawyers believed that private conference was impossible. Observers
58 Access to counsel problems occurred in 14, or 12.7%, of the observed hearings.
39