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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Frequency of Problems in Master Calendar Videoconference Hearings 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Any problem Access to Counsel The Impact of Representation Presentation of Evidence See table 4.1 for the number counts for each problem. 7 Interpretation Technological Problems • The effect of videoconferencing was more severe on detained immigrants who were unrepresented than on those with attorneys. A disproportionate share of unrepresented persons (44%) were ordered removed compared to represented persons (17.7%). The Impact of Language and Ethnicity • 12% of all observed immigrants had interpretation problems, either because they lacked an interpreter when they appeared to need one, or because their interpreter misinterpreted or failed to interpret statements.
• Nearly 30% of those who had an interpreter appeared to misunderstand what was happening during the hearing, either due to misinterpretation or lack of adequate interpretation. • Other problems were generally more prevalent for non-English speakers. 70% of non-English speakers experienced at least one problem related to videoconferencing during their hearing, and almost 50% received removal orders (as opposed to 21% for English-speakers). • The likelihood of removal increased for Latinos who did not speak English. 76% of non-English-speaking Latinos were removed, as opposed to 46% of English- speaking Latinos. Recommendation for a Moratorium on Videoconferencing Given the serious problems that we observed, LAF and Chicago Appleseed suggest that EOIR impose a moratorium on videoconferencing in removal cases until it can be improved. In general, videoconference hearings should be better regulated, immigrants should be able to opt out of videoconferencing when their substantive rights are at issue, judges and attorneys should be better trained in conducting and participating in videoconference hearings, and communication and technological problems should be addressed. In light of how much is at stake in removal cases, significant changes need to be made before videoconferencing can be an acceptable substitute for in-person hearings. 8
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: informed of what had happened only
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?