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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

U~J~~H ..(~.I1JOOO Z:O~ f:-t0909 'II 'o8~!1IJ 00£ ~~!ns 'p.rnA~lnog uoq~ef ~s~M 111 o8~!qJ ~!1odO,Q~WJo uonepuno~ ~~~!SSV le8~ :U~J:Y.)H "JW J1r.}Q 33HSnr)0 .o3w..n~d3a .s.n M3!J\3)l UOHtUa!WWI JOJ ~!.JJO 3J\!}n~X3 jo a:J!ffo a8pnf UO!ID.J8!UJUJ/ ja!1fJ a1f1 '~sod nOA suo!}s~nb ~tp O} SJ~MS\rn~.rn ~sopu3 'A.I}unro ~q} }noq~no.nH }u~wd!noo ~UpU~J~JUo~P} OOp!AJO ~sn S,PflO;) UO!}UJ~!WWI ~q} }noqu suo!}s~nb )0 }s!I u ~U!SOPU~ '~OOl '8l A.I1?nUUf )0 J~U~I JOOA JO) nOA "'JU1?1U .A~Ams mOA U! Inpsn S! UO!}tJWJoJU! S!tp ~oq I ~msopu3 I tOlll1!U~A 'IpDI":J S1f1'::l OOfl ~",S '7.I(!J :J.mqu7] L.O/f ~ooz '£ q:URW 'AInJ} s.m°A. ~iJpnf uo!Wlii!WW}p!q:::> }trntS!SSV n~ '.0:1 p1?q:)!W lJ(}(f2l- --olrV
(JlA) ~U!~U~J~Juo~-~I~l O~P!A o~!lIJ tmtHodo.q~WJo uOHepuno~ ~:>tmtS!SSV 183:YJ ~1p Aq ]Y.}}u~s~ld Suo!}s~no ;.asod.md AU1~ .I°J :J.LA paso SJ.lOO;) aAuq ~UOI MO" .1 'Z O£ '~661 U! siJu!.JDa'1 Joj (:J.LAJ 2upua.lajuo:J-a/al oap!ct gU!sn ulJgaq 1Jn°:J UO!1lJJlJ!UJUJ/ a'1.L tJ'1J UJO.Jj (l .']!lJ[ 'aw 'Nun°:J O:J!UJOJ!M
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 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: x!puaddv H
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?