Trump Justice Dep’t to Immigration Judges: Pick up the Pace or We’ll Decide Your Cases

Did you know that the judges deciding most immigration cases – including serious asylum matters – are employees of the Justice Department and not independent judges like the ones who handle criminal or civil cases? Most people don’t. Even the judges hearing initial immigration appeals are Justice Department employees. Under a new streamlining rule, however, even these judges may not have the final say in the life-and-death decisions affecting people in the immigration system.

Should a single, political appointee make these decisions?

Until recently, a person who claimed asylum status, due to persecution abroad, might bring this claim in immigration court, part of the Department of Justice. There, an immigration judge, who would be a Department of Justice employee, would adjudicate the person’s claim, deciding whether or not the person faced a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to her home country.

If the person lost in immigration court, she could appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, an appellate body also housed within the Department of Justice. Members of the Board were typically highly experienced immigration attorneys charged with exercising independent judgment in adjudicating cases before them.

However, a recent Department of Justice rule has changed these appellate arrangements significantly. Now, if the Board fails to complete a case within either 90 days, or 180 days, depending on the nature of the case, it may be assigned to the “Director” of the immigration court system, a political appointee.

Proponents of the rule change argue that it will increase the efficiency of a system that faces a lengthy backlog of cases. Opponents say that it will inject politics into legal adjudications of individual cases and pressure immigration judges to make quick decisions without proper consideration.

Recommended Articles

article feature image
SCOTUS Resolves Circuit Split and Rejects 9th Circuit’s More Lenient Cancellation of Removal Standard

SCOTUS clarified that a legal permanent resident alien can be physically in the U.S., commit a criminal offense, and still be inadmissible.

article feature image
Former Informants Are Not Protected Group

Fifth Circuit: Former Informants Are Not Protected Group

article feature image
New Shelters for Surge of Migrant Youths Crossing Border

The Secretary of Health and Human Services has asked the Pentagon to add 5,000 more beds for young people. During last year’s surge of undocumented persons, the military opened emergency shelters to house the migrants at bases in Oxnard, San Antonio and Ft. Sill, Oklahoma.

article feature image
Deported Immigrants with Mental Disabilities

On September 26th, 2015 U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee granted final approval of the settlement in Franco v. Holder, paving the way for previously deported immigrants with severe mental disabilities to request to reopen their cases in Immigration Court, and if approved return to the United States.

Attorney Failed to Explain Immigration Consequences | Ninth Circuit

The defense attorney has an affirmative duty to properly advise. It is not enough to say it is a “possibility” under those circumstances.

Michael Harwin

About Michael Harwin

Michael’s skill and experience have been recognized repeatedly. He holds an A-V 5/5 preeminent rating by Martindale Hubbell. He has been named one of the top lawyers in Arizona by Southwest Superlawyers, and one of the best lawyers in Tucson by Tucson Lifestyle Magazine. He also has been named one of the best lawyers in the United States by , and given the highest rating possible by AVVO, 10/10 Superb. Amazon Books