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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

videoconferencing hearing will be conducted, and advising the applicant of the right to request an in-person hearing. Accompanying the notice is a form the applicant can fill out to request an in-person hearing. Recommendation: EOIR should draft a separate notice for videoconferencing cases in the languages most commonly spoken by immigrants, explaining the nature of videoconference hearings and the basic videoconferencing procedure, including the right of an immigrant to request an in-person hearing for good cause. 59
CONCLUSION Mandatory detention and aggressive enforcement of the immigration laws have placed strains on immigration courts, creating a pressure to resolve cases more quickly and efficiently. Against this pressure must be balanced the due process rights of immigrants, who are both important contributors to our national economy and culture, and a vulnerable minority. As more than one court has observed, “virtual reality is rarely a substitute for actual presence and . . . even in an age of advancing technology, watching an event on the screen remains less than the complete equivalent of actually attending it.” 77 Given this truth, special care must be taken to assure that remote immigrants are afforded the same process and treated with the same respect as if they were in court. This is so particularly in the case of detained immigrants, who have greater barriers to accessing counsel and are often housed far from family. We found much evidence to suggest that the right balance has not been achieved. Remote immigrants often experience problems with technology, presentation of evidence, access to their attorney, or language interpretation. They are more likely to experience these problems if they do not speak English, and they are more likely to be ordered removed at their hearing if they are Latinos, especially if they are non-English speaking Latinos. At the same time, we found little evidence to support the claim that videoconferencing enhances efficiency. Given the real danger that immigrants are being hurt by videoconferencing, we propose that EOIR declare a moratorium on videoconference removal hearings, at least until hearings are improved and appropriately regulated. 77 th Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 322 (4 Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Lawrence, 248 F.3d 300, 304 (4 th Cir. 2001)). 60
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 and 58: listens to the judge and non-Englis
Page 59: In other administrative hearings, s
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?