ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal

description

  1. Trump Administration Giving Immigration Judges 700 Case Per Year Quota

    by , 04-03-2018 at 09:30 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    In January of this year the Department of Justice issued a new set of deportation case priorities and immigration court performance measures.

    This past Friday, Director James McHenry establised performance metrics for immigration judges, which will be implemented as of October 1, 2018. All goals are measured annually, from October 1 to September 30. The goals set a 700 case per year quota, a remand rate (including BIA and Circuit Courts) of less than 15%, and establishment of the following "benchmarks":

    Performance is deemed satisfactory when an immigration judge meets at least half of the applicable benchmarks.

    - In 85% of non-status detained removal cases, no more than three days elapse from merits hearing to immigration judge case completion.
    - In 85% of non-status, non-detained removal cases, no more than 10 days elapse from merits hearing to immigration judges case completion, unless
    completion is prohibited by statute (e.g. a cap on grants of relief) or completion is delayed due to a need for completion of background checks.
    - In 85% of motions matters, no more than 20 days elapse from immigration judge receipt of the motion to adjudication of the motion.
    - In 90% of custody redetermination cases, case is completed on the initial scheduled custody redetermination hearing date unless DHS does not produce the alien on the hearing date.
    - In 95% of all cases, individual merits hearing is completed on the initial scheduled hearing date, unless, if applicable, DHS does not produce the alien
    on the hearing date.
    - In 100% of credible fear and reasonable fear reviews, case is completed on the initial hearing date unless DHS does not produce the alien on the hearing date.

    Performance is deemed unsatisfactory when case completions fall below 560 cases per year, or the Judge has a remand rate (including BIA and Circuit Courts) of greater than 20%, or the immigration judge’s performance includes one or more of the following unsatisfactory benchmarks:

    - In greater than 35% of non-status detained removal cases, more than three days elapse from merits hearing to immigration judge case completion.
    - In greater than 35% of non-status, non-detained removal cases, more than 10 days elapse from merits hearing to immigration judge case completion,
    excepting cases where completion is prohibited by statute (e.g. a cap on grants of relief) or completion is delayed due to a need for completion of background checks.
    - In greater than 35% of motions matters, more than 20 days elapse from immigration judge receipt of the motion to adjudication of the motion.
    - In greater than 30% of custody redetermination cases, case is not completed on the initial scheduled custody redetermination hearing date excluding cases where DHS does not produce the alien on the hearing date.
    - In greater than 25% of all cases, individual merits hearing is not completed on the initial scheduled hearing date, excluding cases where DHS does not
    produce the alien on the hearing date.
    - In greater than 20% of credible fear and reasonable reviews, case is not completed on the initial hearing date, excluding cases where DHS does not
    produce the alien on the hearing date.

    Click here to read the full EOIR performance plan.

    Updated 04-04-2018 at 07:39 AM by MKolken

  2. Immigration Courts Featured on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

    by , 04-02-2018 at 07:13 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Via Last Week Tonight:

    "America’s dysfunctional immigration court system forces many children to appear in court alone. That’s as ridiculous in real life as it would be on a courtroom television show."

    Updated 04-02-2018 at 08:09 AM by MKolken

  3. Deported Veteran Leader Hector Barajas is Coming Home

    by , 03-30-2018 at 08:03 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Via The San Diego Union-Tribune:

    "Finally, after years of fighting for the rights of deported veterans to return to the U.S., Hector will be able to return home as an American citizen," said Jennie Pasquarella, director of immigrants' rights for the ACLU of California and one of Barajas's attorneys. "Hector, like a true soldier, has fought day in and day out since his deportation on behalf of deported veterans across the globe. He never gave up hope that he would one day return to his home and be reunited with his family."

    Click here for more.
  4. Bay Area Residents Stuck in Immigration Detention File Class Action Lawsuit Against Sessions

    by , 03-28-2018 at 11:39 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    March 27, 2018

    CONTACTS:
    Amalia Wille, Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP, 415-821-8808, awil@vblaw.com
    Law Offices of Matthew H. Green, 520-882-8852, matt@arizonaimmigration.net
    Alison Pennington, Centro Legal de la Raza, 510-679-1608, apennington@centrolegal.org
    ACLU SoCal Communications & Media Advocacy, 213-977-5252,communications@aclusocal.org

    SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — Two Bay Area fathers who have been detained for over six months at the Contra Costa West County Detention Facility in Richmond, California sued the federal government today in a class action lawsuit challenging their unlawful and prolonged detention.

    Plaintiffs Esteban Aleman Gonzalez of Antioch and Jose Gutierrez Sanchez of San Lorenzo are represented by Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP, Centro Legal de la Raza, the Law Offices of Matthew H. Green, and the ACLU Foundations of California.

    Aleman Gonzalez and Gutierrez Sanchez were arrested by Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers in the Bay Area in the fall of 2017. They are seeking protection in the United States, and asylum officers with the Department of Homeland Security have determined that both men have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture if deported. Because of this determination, the federal government does not have the authority to deport them.

    Nevertheless, the government has kept them in detention and refused to provide bond hearings – proceedings where immigration judges determine whether they can be released back to their families and lives. Both Aleman Gonzalez and Gutierrez Sanchez have young U.S. citizen children and are the primary providers for their families.

    “Esteban and Jose are part of our Bay Area community, and their families, including their children, are suffering while they remain detained,” said Alison Pennington, Senior Staff Attorney at Centro Legal de la Raza. “They are simply asking for the opportunity to show a judge that they should not be detained while they pursue their case. What the government is doing to them and to so many others should shock the conscience.”

    “When immigration judges refuse to provide these bond hearings, they are grossly misinterpreting federal law,” said Amalia Wille, attorney at Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP. “The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already decided that individuals like Aleman Gonzalez and Gutierrez Sanchez are entitled to bond hearings. Immigration judges are not free to ignore clear binding precedent. Just like all of us, they must follow the law.”
    In February of 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in Jennings v. Rodriguez that federal laws do not authorize bond hearings for certain immigration detainees. The Court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether due process requires a bond hearing. Plaintiffs argue that this ruling, which dealt with a different group of immigrants detained under different laws, provides support for their case.

    “The Supreme Court’s recent decision strongly supports Esteban and Jose’s claims,” said Michael Kaufman, Sullivan & Cromwell Access to Justice Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. “Jennings makes clear that the federal laws at issue here must be interpreted to require a hearing in cases of prolonged incarceration. This is a basic and fundamental due process protection.”

    Attorneys for the plaintiffs estimate the class size numbers in the hundreds. The class is comprised of people detained throughout the Ninth Circuit who have been or will be detained for six months pursuant to a particular immigration statute and denied a prolonged detention hearing before an immigration judge.

    “The federal government’s deportation machine is tearing families apart,” said Matthew H. Green, an immigration attorney representing the proposed class in today’s suit. “I see this every day. Time and time again, my clients are held in a cruel and unnecessary limbo while the government keeps them locked up and withholds their right to a hearing.”

    The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

    The complaint is here: https://www.aclunc.org/docs/20180327_AlemanGonzalez_V_Sessions_Complaint.pdf
    This press release is online here: https://www.aclunc.org/news/bay-area-residents-stuck-immigration-detention-file-class-action-lawsuit-against-sessions
    ###

    Updated 03-28-2018 at 02:04 PM by MKolken

  5. Tracking Immigration Court Outcomes by County of Residence

    by , 03-27-2018 at 01:07 PM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Via Syracuse University's TRAC:

    Contrasting Outcomes in Top Five Counties in the Country


    There are stark contrasts in the typical outcome reached in Immigration Court cases for immigrants residing in different communities. Figure 1 and Table 1 illustrate these differences for the five counties in the country that had the most court cases completed over the period from October 2000 through February 2018. These five counties were: Los Angeles County (CA), Harris County (TX), Miami-Dade County (FL), Cameron County (TX), and Queens County (NY).



    Click here for more.
Page 3 of 243 FirstFirst 123451353103 ... LastLast
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: