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

• 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