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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6. Improving technology Many of the technical problems we found, such as image freezes, transmission delays, and poor sound quality, could be resolved with better technology. Larger video screens would make it easier for the parties to see each other and for immigrant detainees to feel more involved in their removal hearings. In addition, some of the interpretation problems that we observed could be ameliorated with better interpretation technology. Improved technology might also alleviate some of the evidentiary problems we observed. In particular, we saw cases in which immigrants had not received documents or had difficulties seeing documents on the television screen. Attorneys also reported that the current fax system is riddled with problems – if, for example, they faxed ten pages to Broadview, only seven would actually arrive. Additionally, no fax machine is located in the courtroom at the remote site. The ability to present and review documents is an essential component of immigrants’ due process rights, and a better facsimile system could go far towards protecting these rights. Recommendation: EOIR should invest in larger video screens and install high- quality fax machines in both the courtroom and at the remote site. EOIR should seek out the most sophisticated technology, especially for interpretation systems, which are essential for many immigrants. In order to find the best possible technologies, EOIR should look to other courts for models. 7. Providing a better remote facility Many of the problems related to the transfer of documents that we observed could be resolved if EOIR maintained better control over the remote site, including having a trained clerk stationed there. At present, ICE guards, who are untrained in court procedure and are not employees of EOIR, essentially serve as clerks at the remote site. 57
In other administrative hearings, such as videoconference hearings held by the Social Security Administration, an administrative officer is stationed at the remote site. Immigrants may understand the nature of a videoconferencing hearing better where court personnel are available at the remote site, and EOIR will have better control over problems arising during the proceedings. Additionally, ICE relies on lack of space at Broadview as grounds for excluding the public from the remote site (contrary to applicable regulations), although it claims to have plans to “reconfigure” Broadview at some indefinite time in the future. Public access is a critical safeguard in our judicial system and helps preserve the integrity of our courts. EOIR should take immediate steps to ensure that public access exists. Recommendation: Where the remote site is an ICE detention center, EOIR should create greater independence between itself and ICE by stationing court personnel at the remote site. EOIR should take whatever steps necessary to ensure immediate public access to Broadview, and ICE should permit immigrants to speak to the general public about their experiences with videoconferencing. 8. Provide adequate notice Notice of a removal hearing must reach the immigrant in advance of the scheduled hearing, and should provide more information about the videoconferencing hearing process itself. As a model, EOIR should look to notice of videoconference hearings provided by the Social Security Administration in administrative disability determination proceedings. 76 When the Social Security Administration proposes to hold a videoconferencing hearing, it sends a notice explaining to the applicant how the 76 See Social Security Administration Temporary Instruction, Video Teleconferencing Procedures (Sept. 2, 2003), Attachment 3, Sample Notice. 58
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 and 36: In total, we conducted two intervie
Page 37 and 38: Observers witnessed problems caused
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: listens to the judge and non-Englis
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?