{"id":18467,"date":"2021-02-01T13:10:00","date_gmt":"2021-02-01T13:10:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/inthesetimes.com\/article\/virtual-courts-immigration-asylum-seekers-immigration-court"},"modified":"2021-02-01T13:10:00","modified_gmt":"2021-02-01T13:10:00","slug":"the-trump-administrations-cruelty-haunts-our-virtual-immigration-courts-how-judicial-black-sites-have-come-to-shape-our-immigration-system","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2021\/02\/01\/the-trump-administrations-cruelty-haunts-our-virtual-immigration-courts-how-judicial-black-sites-have-come-to-shape-our-immigration-system\/","title":{"rendered":"The Trump Administration’s Cruelty Haunts Our Virtual Immigration Courts – How \u201cjudicial black sites\u201d have come to shape our immigration system."},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t\t\t\t

Lisa Koop, associate director of legal services for the National Immigrant Justice Center<\/a> (NIJC), stood with her client in immigration court in September 2019. The client (name withheld for privacy) had escaped violence in Central America and fled to the United States with her young daughter. Here, they were taken into custody by immigration authorities, which landed them in this courtroom, waiting to hear whether they would be granted asylum.<\/p>\n

They were initially scheduled with a traditional, in-person immigration judge. But that judge retired and the case was transferred to an \u201cimmigration adjudication center.\u201d This new judge video conferenced in. Koop says the judge did not allow an opening statement, was not familiar with relevant precedent and did not ask Koop to address any particularities of the case in the closing argument. The judge ruled that, while the case was \u201cvery sad,\u201d it did not meet the criteria for asylum, then wished Koop\u2019s client \u201cgood luck\u201d following deportation.
<\/p>\n

This experience is not unique. According to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)\u2014the Justice Department agency that oversees these immigration adjudication centers\u2014nearly 300,000 <\/a>asylum cases have been heard via videoconference in the past two years.<\/p>\n

Many of those cases were likely held through these new adjudication centers, which were introduced by the Trump administration <\/a>in 2017. The operations of immigration adjudication centers remain so opaque that some critics call them \u201cjudicial black sites.\u201d The NIJC, which advocates on behalf of immigrants, filed a Freedom of Information Act request with other immigrant rights groups in March 2020 to learn how they work, seeking a list of the centers, their procedures and planned expansions.<\/p>\n

When their request went unfulfilled, the groups followed up in October 2020 with a lawsuit against the EOIR and the Justice Department, accusing them of unlawfully expediting deportations under the pretense of efficiency: \u201c[The Justice Department\u2019s] purported aim in expanding courts and creating [immigration adjudication centers] is to address backlogs,\u201d the lawsuit states. \u201cHowever \u2026 these efforts instead amount to the facilitation of assembly-line justice, in which cases are rapidly funneled with little oversight or regard for due process.\u201d<\/p>\n

Only two such immigration adjudication centers are listed<\/a> on the Justice Department website\u2014in Falls Church, Va., and Fort Worth, Texas. They began to hear asylum cases via videoconferencing (from across the country) as early as 2018, and at least 20 judges have been appointed to the centers. Statistics from EOIR suggest remote immigration caseloads are growing\u2014with more than 134,000 cases heard via videoconference in 2019 and nearly 164,000 in 2020\u2014though what percentage of these cases are heard through immigration adjudication centers is unknown. EOIR declined to respond to multiple requests for comment.<\/p>\n

Regardless of outcomes, the reliance on videoconferences and the lack of information is detrimental, advocates say. Claudia Valenzuela, senior attorney with the American Immigration Council (and plaintiff alongside NIJC), points out that these issues create confusion for clients and attorneys alike.<\/p>\n

\u201cConfusion has arisen around how attorneys or noncitizens can submit documents to the [immigration adjudication centers] and, in some instances, how [attorneys] can appear,\u201d Valenzuela says. \u201cDepending on where the noncitizen is appearing from, it may or may not be possible for the attorney to be present.\u201d This, Valenzuela explains, is \u201cnot ideal for legal representation in an adversarial proceeding.\u201d<\/p>\n

Koop explains that \u201csuch a big part of lawyering in immigration court is reading the immigration judge, taking cues from their expressions, pausing when they seem to be taking notes, asking follow-up questions on direct [examination] when the judge seems engaged or confused.\u201d She adds, \u201cNot being able to see the judge well during questioning disadvantages the client.\u201d<\/p>\n

So far, the Freedom of Information Act request has revealed plans for at least four new immigration adjudication centers. Valenzuela is hopeful their concerns \u201cwill warrant revisiting by the Biden administration,\u201d but the \u201cclear intent,\u201d she argues, is \u201cto essentially process immigration cases under a sort of judicial assembly-line system, with little regard for transparency or due process.\u201d<\/p>\n

Koop acknowledges that the backlog of cases in immigration courts hurts clients, but stresses these immigration adjudication centers are not a solution.<\/p>\n

\u201cSubstituting this woefully flawed court-by-video system for a meaningful day in court is not the answer,\u201d Koop says. \u201cWhen judges are making life-and-death decisions from thousands of miles away, with compromised visual and audio access to the asylum-seekers appearing before them \u2026 they are prevented from doing the job they took an oath to do.<\/p>\n

\u201cAsylum-seekers are wrongfully denied asylum, and justice is not served.\u201d<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\n

This post was originally published on In These Times<\/a>. <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\t\t\t\t\tLisa Koop, associate director of legal services for the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), stood with her client in immigration court in September 2019. The client (name withheld for privacy) had escaped violence in Central America and fled…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1429,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18467"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1429"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18467"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18467\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18468,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18467\/revisions\/18468"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18467"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18467"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18467"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}