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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2002, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) moved televisions into one of the Chicago immigration courtrooms and began conducting hearings for detained immigrants in removal proceedings by videoconferencing. In Chicago’s videoconference hearings, the judges are located in the downtown court, and the detainees appear from a small detention facility in a Chicago suburb. EOIR believes that videoconferencing enhances efficiency but has not to date undertaken a study of its efficacy or fairness. Since the consequences of removal from the United States are so severe for immigrants and their families, we believed that these videoconference hearings deserved further examination. During the summer and fall of 2004, we observed 110 videoconference hearings and recorded our findings. The hearings we observed were “Master Calendar” hearings, where the Immigration Judge determines whether the removal proceeding was properly commenced, examines the charges against the immigrant, schedules future hearings, and, in some cases, orders the immigrant’s removal. Findings We found that videoconferencing is a poor substitute for in-person hearings. Among other problems, we observed deficiencies related to access to counsel, presentation of evidence, and interpretation. Latino immigrants appeared to fare especially poorly in videoconference hearings. Compounding these errors, the immigrants whom we observed had little chance to speak or ask questions, were unable to communicate easily with their attorneys (if they were represented), and typically were 5
informed of what had happened only at the conclusion of the hearing. There was little interpretation given for the benefit of non-English speakers. We were impeded from conducting our study by a general lack of transparency in the removal process for detained immigrants. There was no public access to the remote courtroom, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) refused to allow us to interview immigrants who had gone through videoconference hearings. There is virtually no regulation or written policy, moreover, governing videoconferencing in the immigration court. In summary, our study found the following: • Videoconferencing in the Chicago Immigration Court is marked by the frequent occurrence of problems. In the aggregate, nearly 45% of the observed cases had one or more problems. Observers noted technical problems in one in five hearings, problems related to access to counsel in one in six hearings, problems related to the introduction of evidence in one in six hearings, and problems related to interpretation in three in ten hearings involving non-English speakers. • A substantial number (29%) of hearings that we observed resulted in the immigrant being ordered removed or agreeing to removal, a fact that is striking given that, at the time of our study, videoconferencing was not used in Chicago for final hearings on the merits. 6
Page 1 and 2: Videoconferencing in Removal Hearin
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS Organizations 3 Acknowledg
Page 5: Lisa Colpoys Executive Director Ill
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 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?