The Brookings Institution held a meeting today to discuss immigration and the United States court system. The focus was on the many issues in the current system and what needs to be done to improve it. Juan Osuna, Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals, began the meeting by saying, "I think that the most significant issue is basically the lack of resources. There are simply too many cases and too few judges to hear them." He pointed out that the average judge in an immigration court hears about 1200 cases every year, compared to an average 480 case load per year for district judges.
Robert Katzmann, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, stated that the issue is not only with the lack of judges, but with the poor quality of representation. "The problem of quality of representation is a severe problem in the courts... There are many fine immigration lawyers but all too often I see cases where the immigrants representation is substandard." Additionally, he pointed out that only about 35% of immigrants have representation when they go to court. This problem is compounded by the fact that immigrants are prevented by law from working, so they usually cannot afford quality legal council; additionally, language barriers stand in the way of achieving fair representation. Katzmann believes improving the quality of representation is a critical issue to improve the immigration court system as a whole.
Andrew I. Schoenholtz, Deputy Director of Georgetown University's Institute for the Study of International Migration, stated that the reason immigration courts are so overburdened is because, "We haven't asked ourselves the initial question: Who should be placed into removal proceedings and by whom?" Schoenholtz expressed concern that congress has put into place complex laws which cause any immigrant who breaks any law to go to removal proceedings, regardless of equities they have to stay in the U.S.
The panelists expressed trust in President Obama's administration’s understanding of these issues, and hope that resources will be provided where needed. Schoenholtz stated that he believes making the immigration courts independent of any cabinet agency would improve the quality of lawyers they attract. Additionally, he believes that immigration judges should be required to make written decisions, rather than oral. He also believes that returning to a system where decisions are made by panels will address inconsistencies of the system.
U.S. immigration courts "overburdened, under-resourced"
Robert Katzmann, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, stated that the issue is not only with the lack of judges, but with the poor quality of representation. "The problem of quality of representation is a severe problem in the courts... There are many fine immigration lawyers but all too often I see cases where the immigrants representation is substandard." Additionally, he pointed out that only about 35% of immigrants have representation when they go to court. This problem is compounded by the fact that immigrants are prevented by law from working, so they usually cannot afford quality legal council; additionally, language barriers stand in the way of achieving fair representation. Katzmann believes improving the quality of representation is a critical issue to improve the immigration court system as a whole.
Andrew I. Schoenholtz, Deputy Director of Georgetown University's Institute for the Study of International Migration, stated that the reason immigration courts are so overburdened is because, "We haven't asked ourselves the initial question: Who should be placed into removal proceedings and by whom?" Schoenholtz expressed concern that congress has put into place complex laws which cause any immigrant who breaks any law to go to removal proceedings, regardless of equities they have to stay in the U.S.
The panelists expressed trust in President Obama's administration’s understanding of these issues, and hope that resources will be provided where needed. Schoenholtz stated that he believes making the immigration courts independent of any cabinet agency would improve the quality of lawyers they attract. Additionally, he believes that immigration judges should be required to make written decisions, rather than oral. He also believes that returning to a system where decisions are made by panels will address inconsistencies of the system.