Executive Office For Immigration Review
Caseload Performance Reporting Needs Improvement Gao ID: GAO-06-771 August 11, 2006Within the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ) is responsible for managing the 53 immigration courts located throughout the United States where over 200 immigration judges adjudicate individual cases involving alleged immigration law violations. This report addresses: (1) in recent years, what has been the trend in immigration courts' caseload; (2) how does OCIJ assign and manage the immigration court caseload; and (3) how does EOIR/OCIJ evaluate the immigration courts' performance? To address these issues, GAO interviewed EOIR officials; reviewed information on caseload trends, caseload management, and court evaluations; and analyzed caseload data, case completion goal data, and OCIJ court evaluation reports.
From fiscal years 2000 to 2005, despite an increase in the number of immigration judges, the number of new cases filed in immigration courts outpaced cases completed. During this period, while the number of on-board judges increased about 3 percent, the courts' caseload climbed about 39 percent from about 381,000 cases to about 531,000 cases. The number of completed cases increased about 37 percent while newly filed cases grew about 44 percent. EOIR attributes this growth in part to enhanced border enforcement activities. The courts reduced the number of proceedings awaiting adjudication for more than 4 years, but did not meet their goal to complete all proceedings more than 3 years old by December 31, 2005. OCIJ relies primarily on an automated system to assign cases to immigration judges within a court. To balance the judges' caseload, OCIJ considers the number of newly filed cases and cases awaiting adjudication from prior years, historical data, and the type and complexity of cases. To manage its growing caseload, OCIJ, among other means, details judges from their assigned court to a court in need of assistance and uses available technology such as video conferencing. According to OCIJ, if it recognizes a pattern of sustained need, it recommends that EOIR establish a court in a new location. EOIR evaluates the performance of the immigration courts based on the immigration courts' success in meeting case completion goals. GAO's review of EOIR's quarterly reports on these goals identified a recurring inconsistency between reports as well as other inconsistencies. EOIR explained that these inconsistencies were due to a variety of factors, including the exemption of different categories of cases from the goals in different quarters, delays in data entry, and programming errors in the calculation of the data. Because EOIR has changed its criteria for cases covered by these goals and only maintained the queries for its current reporting process, GAO could not replicate past case completion reports to determine their accuracy. The inconsistencies indicate that EOIR should maintain appropriate documentation to demonstrate the reports' accuracy.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-771, Executive Office For Immigration Review: Caseload Performance Reporting Needs Improvement
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-771
entitled 'Executive Office for Immigration Review: Caseload Performance
Reporting Needs Improvement' which was released on September 12, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Finance, U. S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
August 2006:
Executive Office For Immigration Review:
Caseload Performance Reporting Needs Improvement:
GAO-06-771:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-771, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Finance, United States Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
Within the Department of Justice‘s (DOJ) Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR), the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge
(OCIJ) is responsible for managing the 53 immigration courts located
throughout the United States where over 200 immigration judges
adjudicate individual cases involving alleged immigration law
violations. This report addresses: (1) in recent years, what has been
the trend in immigration courts‘ caseload; (2) how does OCIJ assign and
manage the immigration court caseload; and (3) how does EOIR/OCIJ
evaluate the immigration courts‘ performance? To address these issues,
GAO interviewed EOIR officials; reviewed information on caseload
trends, caseload management, and court evaluations; and analyzed
caseload data, case completion goal data, and OCIJ court evaluation
reports.
What GAO Found:
From fiscal years 2000 to 2005, despite an increase in the number of
immigration judges, the number of new cases filed in immigration courts
outpaced cases completed. During this period, while the number of on-
board judges increased about 3 percent, the courts‘ caseload climbed
about 39 percent from about 381,000 cases to about 531,000 cases. The
number of completed cases increased about 37 percent while newly filed
cases grew about 44 percent. EOIR attributes this growth in part to
enhanced border enforcement activities. The courts reduced the number
of proceedings awaiting adjudication for more than 4 years, but did not
meet their goal to complete all proceedings more than 3 years old by
December 31, 2005. OCIJ relies primarily on an automated system to
assign cases to immigration judges within a court. To balance the
judges‘ caseload, OCIJ considers the number of newly filed cases and
cases awaiting adjudication from prior years, historical data, and the
type and complexity of cases. To manage its growing caseload, OCIJ,
among other means, details judges from their assigned court to a court
in need of assistance and uses available technology such as video
conferencing. According to OCIJ, if it recognizes a pattern of
sustained need, it recommends that EOIR establish a court in a new
location. EOIR evaluates the performance of the immigration courts
based on the immigration courts‘ success in meeting case completion
goals. GAO‘s review of EOIR‘s quarterly reports on these goals
identified a recurring inconsistency between reports as well as other
inconsistencies. EOIR explained that these inconsistencies were due to
a variety of factors, including the exemption of different categories
of cases from the goals in different quarters, delays in data entry,
and programming errors in the calculation of the data. Because EOIR has
changed its criteria for cases covered by these goals and only
maintained the queries for its current reporting process, GAO could not
replicate past case completion reports to determine their accuracy. The
inconsistencies indicate that EOIR should maintain appropriate
documentation to demonstrate the reports‘ accuracy.
Figure: Immigration Court Caseload versus Completed Cases, All Courts,
Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
[End of Figure]
What GAO Recommends:
To more accurately and consistently reflect immigration courts‘
progress in the timely adjudication of immigration cases, GAO
recommends that the Director of EOIR maintain appropriate documentation
to demonstrate the accuracy of case completion goal reports; and
clearly state what cases are being counted in the reports. EOIR agreed
with GAO‘s recommendations and provided technical comments, which were
included as appropriate.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-771].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Paul L. Jones at (202)
512-8777 or jonespl@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Immigration Court Caseload Continues to Increase; Some Progress Has
Been Made in Completing Oldest Proceedings Awaiting Adjudication:
OCIJ Monitors Caseload to Assign Cases to Judges Accordingly, and Uses
a Variety of Means to Address Growing Caseload:
EOIR's Case Completion Goal Reports Contain Some Inconsistencies; Peer
Evaluations Used to Evaluate Court Operations:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Glossary:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: OCIJ Goals to Eliminate Proceedings Awaiting Adjudication over
3 Years Old:
Table 2: Number of Proceedings Awaiting Adjudication 3 or More Years,
by Age, All Courts, End of Fiscal Years 2003 through 2005 and as of
December 31, 2005:
Table 3: Current Targeted Case Completion Goals and Completion Rates:
Figures:
Figure 1: Steps in the Immigration Court Removal Proceedings Process:
Figure 2: Immigration Court Caseload versus Completed Cases, All
Courts, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005:
Figure 3: Immigration Court Caseload Compared to Average Number of
Cases per On-board Immigration Judge, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005:
Figure 5: OCIJ Immigration Court Evaluation Process:
Abbreviations:
ACIJ: Assistant Chief Immigration Judge: BIA: Board of Immigration
Appeals:
CEU: Court Evaluation Unit:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security: DOJ: Department of Justice:
EOIR: Executive Office for Immigration Review: ICEP: Immigration Court
Evaluation Program: INS: Immigration and Naturalization Service; OCIJ:
Office of the Chief Immigration Judge:
United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC 20548:
August 11, 2006:
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley:
Chairman:
Committee on Finance:
United States Senate:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) estimated
that about 7 million unauthorized immigrants resided in the United
States as of January 2000 and a recent study[Footnote 1] estimated that
the unauthorized immigrant population was about 11.5 to 12 million in
2006. These totals include those who entered the United States
illegally and those who entered legally but overstayed their authorized
period of stay. Identifying this increased number of unauthorized
immigrants and adjudicating their cases has placed enormous demands on
federal agencies responsible for enforcing and administering
immigration laws. This demand continues to grow as an estimated 700,000
to 850,000 immigrants enter illegally or overstay their authorized
period in this country each year.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for
identifying and removing unauthorized immigrants who are in the United
States in violation of immigration laws. Immigrants identified by DHS
as subject to removal from the United States are charged by DHS with
immigration violations and given notice that they are to appear before
an immigration judge to address the charges.[Footnote 2] The Department
of Justice's (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
through its immigration courts is responsible for administering and
interpreting immigration laws and regulations in the cases that come
before the courts.[Footnote 3]
Within EOIR, the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ) is
responsible for managing the 53 immigration courts located throughout
the United States, where over 200 immigration judges adjudicated about
350,000 individual cases[Footnote 4] involving alleged immigration law
violations in fiscal year 2005. The immigration courts are faced with
the challenge of adjudicating their caseload (all cases awaiting
adjudication) in a timely manner while at the same time ensuring that
the rights of the immigrants appearing before them are protected.
In your request, you expressed interest about the management and
performance of the immigration courts. In this report, we address the
following questions:
1. In recent years, what has been the trend in immigration courts'
caseload?
2. How does OCIJ assign and manage immigration court caseload?
3. How does EOIR/OCIJ evaluate the immigration courts' performance?
To address these objectives, we met with officials from DOJ's EOIR
headquarters to obtain information and documentation on caseload
trends, caseload management, and evaluation of immigration courts. To
gain a better understanding of the operations and management of
immigration courts, we also visited four immigration courts--Arlington
in Arlington, Virginia; Newark in Newark, New Jersey; and two courts in
New York City, New York. We selected these four courts to include
courts varying in size,[Footnote 5] based on the number of immigration
judges. At these locations, we observed court proceedings and met with
immigration judges, court administrators, and attorneys that litigate
cases before the immigration courts--attorneys from the Office of Chief
Counsel of DHS's Immigration and Customs Enforcement and private bar
attorneys. We also interviewed representatives of the National
Association of Immigration Judges, the American Immigration Lawyers
Association, and the American Bar Association, Commission on
Immigration. For the first objective, we obtained and analyzed caseload
data contained in EOIR's case management system. To assess the
reliability of those data needed to answer this objective, we (1)
performed electronic testing for obvious errors in accuracy and
completeness, (2) reviewed related documentation about the data and the
systems that produced them, including a contractor's report on data
verification of the case management system, and (3) interviewed agency
officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the data
were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. For the
second objective, we obtained and reviewed policies, procedures, and
other documents about caseload management, as well as staffing data for
fiscal years 2000 through 2005. For the third objective, we obtained
and reviewed policies, procedures, and other documents about the
evaluation of immigration courts' performance. We also obtained and
analyzed EOIR's case completion goal reports for fiscal years 2001
through 2005 (as discussed later in this report, our review raised
questions about these reports) and reviewed the relevant internal
control standards for such reports. We also reviewed OCIJ's reports for
court evaluations conducted in fiscal years 2000 and 2004 and EOIR's
data on complaints against immigration judges for fiscal years 2001
through 2005.
We conducted our work from March 2005 through August 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. (See app. I for
more details on our scope and methodology.)
Results in Brief:
From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2005, despite an increase in the
number of immigration judges and the number of cases completed by the
immigration courts, the number of newly filed cases outpaced cases
completed. During the same time period when the number of on-board
judges increased about 3 percent, the courts' caseload increased 39
percent from about 381,000 cases at the end of fiscal year 2000 to
about 531,000 cases at the end of fiscal year 2005. The average number
of cases per on-board immigration judge increased about 35 percent,
from 1,852 in fiscal year 2000 to 2,505 in fiscal year 2005. The number
of completed cases increased by about 37 percent, from about 253,000
cases in fiscal year 2000 to about 347,000 cases in fiscal year 2005.
During the same period, the number of newly filed cases grew about 44
percent from about 252,000 to about 363,000. According to EOIR, the
increase in the number of newly filed cases may be attributed to
several factors, including enhanced border and interior enforcement
actions and changes in immigration laws and regulations. Starting in
fiscal year 2003, the immigration courts set a series of goals aimed at
completing all proceedings older than 3 years by December 31, 2005. At
the end of fiscal year 2003, the courts had 13,031 proceedings awaiting
adjudication 3 or more years. The courts reduced the number of
proceedings awaiting adjudication for more than 4 years, but did not
meet their goal to complete all proceedings more than 3 years old by
December 31, 2005. On December 31, 2005, 9,412 proceedings were 3 or
more years old.
OCIJ relies primarily on an automated system to assign cases to
immigration judges within a court. To balance the caseload among
judges, OCIJ considers the number of newly filed cases and cases
awaiting adjudication from prior years, historical data, and the nature
of the caseload, such as the type of cases prevalent in the court and
their complexity. To manage its growing caseload, OCIJ, among other
means, details judges from their assigned court to a court in need of
assistance and uses available technology such as videoconferencing.
According to OCIJ, if it recognizes a pattern of sustained need, it
recommends that EOIR establish a court in a new location. During fiscal
years 2000 through 2005, EOIR established three new immigration courts.
EOIR/OCIJ evaluates the performance of the immigration courts based on
the immigration courts' success in meeting case completion goals and
through peer evaluations. EOIR documents the case completion goal data
for the courts' 11 case types in internal quarterly reports; the
courts' success in meeting 4 of the 11 case types that have been
identified as adjudication priorities is published in DOJ's annual
budget report and "Performance and Accountability Report," which tracks
DOJ's performance as required by the Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993. Our review of EOIR's internal quarterly reports identified
a recurring inconsistency between reports as well as other
inconsistencies. EOIR cited several factors to explain the
inconsistencies: the "live," constantly changing nature of the EOIR
data base; the exemption of different categories of cases from the case
completion goals in different quarters; deletions of cases double
entered by DHS in the automated scheduling system; reconciliations due
to changes to date fields to update cases in the data base; delays in
data entry; and programming errors in the calculation of the data. Over
time EOIR has changed the criteria for cases covered by case completion
goals and only maintained the queries for its current reporting
process. Consequently, we could not replicate EOIR's past reports to
determine the accuracy of the case completion goal data. The
inconsistencies indicate that EOIR should maintain appropriate
documentation to demonstrate the accuracy of data reported by EOIR. A
second means EOIR uses to evaluate the courts' performance is peer
evaluation--its Immigration Court Evaluation Program (ICEP). The ICEP
team conducts an onsite visit where it evaluates court operations
including the court's organizational structure and workflow processes
and prepares a report of its findings and recommendations.
To more accurately and consistently reflect immigration courts'
progress in the timely adjudication of immigration cases, we recommend
that the Director of EOIR (1) maintain appropriate documentation to
demonstrate the accuracy of case completion goal reports and (2)
clearly state what cases are being counted in the reports.
After reviewing a draft of this report, EOIR responded in an e-mail
that it concurred with GAO's recommendations. EOIR also provided
technical comments, which we have included as appropriate.
Background:
Under the authority of the Attorney General, EOIR interprets and
administers federal immigration laws by conducting formal quasi-
judicial proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings.
EOIR consists of three primary components: OCIJ, which is responsible
for managing the immigration courts located throughout the United
States where immigration judges[Footnote 6] adjudicate individual
cases; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which primarily conducts
appellate reviews of immigration judge decisions;[Footnote 7] and the
Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, which adjudicates
immigration-related employment cases such as employer sanctions for
employment of unauthorized immigrants. EOIR was established on January
9, 1983, as a result of an internal DOJ reorganization. This
reorganization combined the BIA with the immigration judge function
previously performed by the former INS. The Office of the Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer was added in 1987. A Director who
reports directly to the Deputy Attorney General heads EOIR.
EOIR's mission is to provide for the fair, expeditious, and uniform
interpretation and application of immigration law. In support of this
mission, one of EOIR's strategic goals is to adjudicate all cases in a
timely manner while assuring due process and fair treatment for all
parties. According to its strategic plan for fiscal years 2005 through
2010, EOIR plans to accomplish this goal by, among other things, (1)
eliminating case backlog by the end of fiscal year 2008,[Footnote 8]
(2) implementing improved caseload management practices, and (3)
adjudicating cases within specified time frames.
As of October 1, 2005, EOIR had 1,182 authorized full-time permanent
positions. OCIJ was the largest of the three primary components with
789 positions. The majority of these 789 positions (745) were in the
immigration courts located throughout the nation. Of these 745
positions,[Footnote 9] 225 were immigration judges.[Footnote 10] The
remaining court staff included 45 court/deputy court administrators,
367 assistants/clerks,[Footnote 11] and 108 court
interpreters.[Footnote 12]
OCIJ provides overall program direction, articulates policies and
procedures, and establishes priorities for the immigration courts. OCIJ
is headed by a Chief Immigration Judge who carries out these
responsibilities with the assistance and support of two Deputy Chief
Immigration Judges and nine Assistant Chief Immigration Judges
(ACIJ).[Footnote 13] The ACIJs serve as the principal liaison between
OCIJ headquarters and the immigration courts and have supervisory
authority over the immigration judges, the court administrators, and
judicial law clerks.[Footnote 14] At the court level, court
administrators manage the daily court operations as well as the
administrative staff. Currently there are 53 immigration courts
including 17 courts that are co-located with a detention center,
correctional facility, or service processing center and a court located
at EOIR headquarters in Falls Church, Virginia,[Footnote 15] and
numerous other hearing locations.[Footnote 16] The sizes of the
immigration courts vary. In fiscal year 2005, the smallest of the 53
immigration courts (Fishkill in New York) consisted of 2 authorized
legal assistants.[Footnote 17] In contrast, the largest court (New York
City in New York) consisted of the following authorized staff: 27
immigration judges, 1 court administrator, 1 deputy court
administrator, 46 assistants/clerks, and 8 court interpreters.
The immigration judges are responsible for hearing all cases that come
before them, and act independently in deciding the cases. They hear a
wide range of immigration related cases that consist primarily of
removal proceedings[Footnote 18] conducted to determine whether certain
immigrants are subject to removal from the country.[Footnote 19] If DHS
alleges a violation of immigration law(s) that is subject to
adjudication by the immigration courts, it serves the immigrant with a
charging document, ordering the individual to appear before an
immigration judge. The charging document is also filed with the
immigration court having jurisdiction over the immigrant,[Footnote 20]
and advises the immigrant of, among other things, the nature of the
proceeding; the alleged act(s) that violated the law; the right to an
attorney at no expense to the government; and the consequences of
failing to appear at scheduled hearings.[Footnote 21] Removal
proceedings generally require an immigration judge to make: (1) a
determination of the immigrant's removability from the United States
and (2), thereafter, if the immigrant applies, a decision whether the
immigrant is eligible for a form(s) of relief from removal such as
asylum, adjustment of status, cancellation of removal, or other
remedies, or voluntary departure, which is an alternative to
removal.[Footnote 22] Once an immigration judge orders the removal of
an immigrant, DHS is responsible for carrying out the removal.
Figure 1: Steps in the Immigration Court Removal Proceedings Process:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
[End of figure]
As shown in figure 1, immigration court removal proceedings generally
involve an initial master calendar hearing and, subsequently, an
individual merits hearing. During the master calendar hearing, the
immigration judge is to ensure that the immigrant understands the
immigration violation charges and provide the immigrant information on
available free of charge or low-cost legal representation in the area.
During the individual merits hearing, the merits of the case are
presented before the immigration judge by the immigrant, or the
immigrant's legal representative, and the DHS attorney who is
prosecuting the case. DHS must prove that an immigrant is in the United
States unlawfully and should be removed. In most cases, the immigration
judge issues an oral decision at the conclusion of the individual
merits hearing. The immigration judge may order the alien removed or
may grant relief. If the immigration judge decides that removability
has not been established by DHS, he or she may terminate the
proceedings. Once a case is completed, if the immigrant or DHS
disagrees with the immigration judge's decision, either party or both
parties may appeal the decision to the BIA. If the BIA ruling is
adverse to the immigrant, the immigrant generally may file an appeal in
the federal court system. According to EOIR, if DHS disagrees with the
BIA's ruling, in rare instances, the case may be referred to the
Attorney General for review.
Immigration Court Caseload Continues to Increase; Some Progress Has
Been Made in Completing Oldest Proceedings Awaiting Adjudication:
Immigration Courts' Caseload Increases as More Newly Filed Cases Are
Received than Cases Completed:
From fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2005, the number of newly
filed cases outpaced cases completed. Consequently, the immigration
courts' caseload increased about 39 percent, from about 381,000 cases
at the end of fiscal year 2000 to about 531,000 cases at the end of
fiscal year 2005. During the same period, in 4 of 6 years, the number
of newly filed cases received was greater than the number of cases
completed. The number of newly filed cases grew about 44 percent, from
about 252,000 in fiscal year 2000, to about 363,000 in fiscal year
2005. On the other hand, the number of completed cases increased about
37 percent, from about 253,000 cases in fiscal year 2000, to about
347,000 cases in fiscal year 2005. (See fig. 2.)
Figure 2: Immigration Court Caseload versus Completed Cases, All
Courts, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
[End of figure]
According to EOIR officials, the annual increase in newly filed cases
can be driven by several factors. These factors include enhanced border
and interior enforcement actions, changes in immigration laws and
regulations, and emerging or special situations.
The greatest increase (about 47,000 or 16 percent) in the number of
cases completed by the immigration courts occurred between fiscal years
2004 and 2005. This increase is in large part because of an increase in
the number of in absentia decisions--in cases where a judge orders an
immigrant removed from the United States when the immigrant has not
appeared for a scheduled removal hearing.[Footnote 23] The number of in
absentia cases increased about 80 percent from about 70,000 cases in
fiscal year 2004 to about 126,000 cases in fiscal year 2005. According
to EOIR officials, in absentia cases require less time to complete
because there is limited or no conflicting evidence for the court to
hear and review when the immigrant does not appear to respond to the
charge of removability.
While there has been an increase in the number of immigration judges
since fiscal year 2000, the immigration court caseload has grown at a
much more rapid pace. The number of on-board immigration judges
increased by 6 (about 3 percent), from 206 to 212[Footnote 24] between
fiscal years 2000 and 2005, while the immigration courts' caseload
increased about 39 percent during the same period. As a result, the
average number of cases per on-board immigration judge has increased
slightly more than 35 percent, from 1,852 in fiscal year 2000 to 2,505
in fiscal year 2005 (see fig. 3). In particular, the case-per-judge
ratios were generally higher in southwestern border courts where the
proportion of in absentia cases is also among the highest in the
country. For example, in fiscal year 2005, the Harlingen and San
Antonio immigration courts in Texas each had a case-per-judge ratio of
over 8,000 compared to the average for all courts of 2,505.
Figure 3: Immigration Court Caseload Compared to Average Number of
Cases per On-board Immigration Judge, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
[End of figure]
OCIJ Set Goals to Reduce the Age of Proceedings Awaiting Adjudication;
despite Some Progress, OCIJ Had Not Met Its Goals:
OCIJ has taken steps to reduce the age of proceedings awaiting
adjudication. According to an OCIJ memorandum, in March 2003, the
immigration courts established a priority for completing its older
proceedings. The courts set a series of goals to complete all
proceedings older than 4 years; since then, they have introduced
additional goals targeting proceedings older than 3 years. OCIJ's goals
are summarized in table 1.
Table 1: OCIJ Goals to Eliminate Proceedings Awaiting Adjudication over
3 Years Old:
Age of proceeding: Greater than 6 years; Completion deadline: September
30, 2003.
Age of proceeding: Greater than 5 years; Completion deadline: March 31,
2004.
Age of proceeding: Greater than 4 years; Completion deadline: November
30, 2004.
Age of proceeding: Greater than 3 and ½ years; Completion deadline:
June 30, 2005.
Age of proceeding: Greater than 3 years; Completion deadline: December
31, 2005.
Source: GAO based on EOIR data.
[End of table]
Our analysis of the immigration courts' proceedings data shows that
while the courts have achieved success in reducing the number of
proceedings older than 4 years between fiscal year 2003 and December
31, 2005, the courts did not meet their goal of completing all
proceedings more than 3 years old by December 31, 2005 (see table 2).
At the end of fiscal year 2003, the courts had 13,031 proceedings
awaiting adjudication 3 or more years. Between fiscal year 2003 and
December 31, 2005, the number of proceedings 6 or more years old was
cut about 48 percent, from 1,058 to 547; the number of proceedings
between 5 and 6 years old dropped to about a quarter of its fiscal year
2003 level from 2,375 to 547; and the number of proceedings between 4
and 5 years old decreased about 37 percent (3,185 to 2,010). However,
at the end of December 2005, 9,412 proceedings remained open after 3 or
more years.[Footnote 25]
Table 2: Number of Proceedings Awaiting Adjudication 3 or More Years,
by Age, All Courts, End of Fiscal Years 2003 through 2005 and as of
December 31, 2005:
September 30, 2003;
Age of proceeding: 3 - 3.5 years: 3,914; Age of proceeding: 3.5 - 4
years: 2,499; Age of proceeding: 4 - 5 years: 3,185; Age of proceeding:
5 - 6 years: 2,375; Age of proceeding: 6 or more years: 1,058; Total:
13,031.
September 30, 2004;
Age of proceeding: 3 - 3.5 years: 5,878; Age of proceeding: 3.5 - 4
years: 2,959; Age of proceeding: 4 - 5 years: 2,122; Age of proceeding:
5 - 6 years: 742; Age of proceeding: 6 or more years: 619; Total:
12,320.
September 30, 2005;
Age of proceeding: 3 - 3.5 years: 5,607; Age of proceeding: 3.5 - 4
years: 3,246; Age of proceeding: 4 - 5 years: 2,395; Age of proceeding:
5 - 6 years: 625; Age of proceeding: 6 or more years: 621; Total:
12,494.
December 31, 2005;
Age of proceeding: 3 - 3.5 years: 3,945; Age of proceeding: 3.5 - 4
years: 2,363; Age of proceeding: 4 - 5 years: 2,010; Age of proceeding:
5 - 6 years: 547; Age of proceeding: 6 or more years: 547; Total:
9,412.
Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.
[End of table]
OCIJ Monitors Caseload to Assign Cases to Judges Accordingly, and Uses
a Variety of Means to Address Growing Caseload:
OCIJ Monitors Caseload and Assigns Cases to Judges within Courts:
OCIJ monitors immigration courts' caseload to assign cases to judges
within a court. According to OCIJ, in general, the need for court
personnel is driven by the immigration courts' caseload. Specifically,
OCIJ considers the number of newly filed cases and cases awaiting
adjudication from prior years, historical data, and the nature of the
caseload, such as the type of cases prevalent in the court and their
complexity. As newly filed cases are received, OCIJ said that it
evaluates the impact of these cases on the allocation of resources at
the immigration courts. For example, according to OCIJ, through
experience, it has learned that the immigration courts will have
difficulty meeting and maintaining its case adjudication time goals
when immigration judges have more than 1,050 and 1,500 newly filed
cases involving non-detained and detained immigrants, respectively.
Therefore, OCIJ attempts to keep the list of cases that appears on the
judges' calendars under these levels. In addition, on the basis of
feedback from the courts, the responsible ACIJ notifies OCIJ
headquarters of any unexpected increases in newly filed cases in a
given court due to emerging or special situations, such as mass
migration or enhanced border enforcement actions. According to OCIJ, if
a pattern of need emerges, it reassigns personnel or provides other
assistance, if available.
OCIJ noted that the judges' calendar of cases might vary among courts
due to the type and complexity of the cases received. Thus, the case-
per-judge ratios will be higher in some courts than others. Courts with
a high number of change of venue cases (cases that are transferred from
one court to another court) and/or in absentia cases that require less
time to complete have a higher volume of cases per judge than courts
with more merits asylum cases and other complex cases awaiting
adjudication. For example, judges in the Harlingen and San Antonio
immigration courts located in Texas are assigned a higher number of
cases because these courts have a high number of change of venue and in
absentia cases adjudicated in a given year compared to the San
Francisco, California, New York City, New York, and Miami, Florida,
immigration courts, where most cases are merits asylum hearings that
require more time to complete. In fiscal year 2005, judges in the
Harlingen and San Antonio immigration courts had, on average, over
8,000 cases compared to judges in San Francisco, New York City, and
Miami immigration courts who had, on average, about 1,200, 1,500, and
2,400 cases, respectively.
Within each immigration court, newly filed cases are generally assigned
to immigration judges through an automated process; however, some
flexibility exists. After a charging document has been filed, either
DHS through an interactive scheduling system or immigration court staff
are to enter data on newly filed cases in EOIR's case management
system.[Footnote 26] The case management system automatically assigns
newly filed cases within each court on the basis of the next available
judge's calendar, rotating through all of the judges to equalize the
number of cases assigned to each immigration judge. In addition, OCIJ
stated that court staff has the flexibility to manually assign newly
filed cases to a specific immigration judge rather than use the
automated system. For example, the court administrator may manually
schedule some cases to correct inequities that occurred in the number
and type of cases that were assigned to a judge by the automated
system. Also, cases that are re-entering the immigration court system
are generally manually assigned to the immigration judge who had
initially adjudicated the case.[Footnote 27] Further, if a judge
already has a heavy caseload, OCIJ officials said that an ACIJ, through
authority delegated by the Chief Immigration Judge, may decide to
exclude a judge from assignment of newly filed cases through the
automated system.
EOIR's Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2005 through 2010 states that it
intends to consider changes in workload, establish better methods to
project future workload, and adjust resources accordingly.
Additionally, EOIR proposes to refine its current caseload management
practices to ensure that cases move through the system as efficiently
as possible. For example, EOIR plans to study the rates at which
immigrants are failing to appear at their court proceedings and to
schedule cases so that court time is used more efficiently. EOIR
officials stated they are in the early stages of implementing the
objectives outlined in the Strategic Plan.
OCIJ Details Judges, Uses Technology, Transfers Responsibility for
Hearing Locations, and Recommends Establishing New Courts to Address
Growing Caseload:
OCIJ's process for managing court caseload is to monitor the caseload
of each immigration court to identify those courts that are unable to
meet their established goals for timely case adjudication, and provide
assistance to these courts in meeting their goals. According to OCIJ,
it primarily addresses immigration judge staff shortages at immigration
courts through detailing judges from their assigned court to a court in
need of assistance. Details usually occur to cover situations such as
emerging needs that result in a surge of newly filed cases; staff
shortages in a court due to illness, retirements, or annual leave; or
the need to hear cases in other designated hearing locations. OCIJ
advertises the detail opportunities to solicit volunteers. In selecting
from the judges that volunteer,[Footnote 28] OCIJ said that it
considers the needs of these immigration judges' respective assigned
courts. Volunteers from courts that have heavy caseloads and are not
meeting their goals for timely case adjudication will usually not be
selected. According to EOIR, it does not maintain readily available
data on the number and duration of immigration judge details.
OCIJ also uses available technology to address staff shortages. Many
courts have the capability to use videoconferencing to conduct
immigration hearings in other courts and locations such as detention
centers and correctional facilities throughout the country. As of May
1, 2006, EOIR had videoconferencing capability at 47 of the 53
immigration courts, and 77 other locations where immigration hearings
were conducted. According to OCIJ, videoconferencing allows immigration
judges in one court to assist another immigration court with an
unusually heavy caseload, on an ad hoc basis. For example, the two
immigration judges in the court located at EOIR headquarters in Falls
Church, Virginia, use videoconferencing to address short-term resource
needs as they arise in the other immigration courts nationwide. OCIJ
said that it will use this technology where available and feasible
until this remedy is deemed insufficient to meet the needs of the
courts. OCIJ also said that it has used videoconferencing as an interim
measure while it assesses the ongoing need to establish a new
immigration court. According to EOIR's fiscal year 2005 performance
work plans, ACIJs were expected to increase the usage of video
technology to address case requirement needs of immigration courts.
In addition, EOIR transfers responsibility for some hearing locations
among immigration courts to more evenly distribute the caseload among
immigration judges. For example, in July 2003, EOIR redistributed the
Detroit, Michigan, immigration court's caseload by transferring cases
from Cincinnati and Cleveland, Ohio, to the Arlington, Virginia, court;
and cases from Louisville, Kentucky, to the Memphis, Tennessee,
court.[Footnote 29] According to EOIR, unless the parties are notified
otherwise, immigration hearings continue to be conducted at the same
hearing locations in each of these states, with immigration judges
traveling to those locations or holding hearings by videoconference
when appropriate. EOIR stated that these transfers are infrequent.
When a pattern of sustained need emerges, OCIJ officials said that they
recommend to EOIR establishing a court in a new location, usually a
previous hearing location--especially if there is a significant
distance to travel, along with significant travel costs. A permanent
court is usually recommended if the hearing location can no longer be
effectively covered by an existing immigration court (e.g., if a court
fails to meet its goals for timely case adjudication). However,
according to OCIJ, whether a new court can be established depends on
the available resources. During fiscal years 2000 through 2005, EOIR
established three new immigration courts.[Footnote 30] For example, in
July 2005, EOIR established the newest immigration court in Salt Lake
City, Utah, which was previously a hearing location of the Denver
immigration court in Colorado. EOIR recently said that it will open a
new court in Cleveland, Ohio, in August 2006 and is requesting funds to
open four additional courts in fiscal year 2007.
EOIR's Case Completion Goal Reports Contain Some Inconsistencies; Peer
Evaluations Used to Evaluate Court Operations:
EOIR/OCIJ evaluates the immigration courts' performance based on their
success in meeting case completion goals and through peer evaluations
of court operations. In addition, EOIR/OCIJ monitors complaints against
immigration judges.
EOIR's Case Completion Goal Reports Contain Some Inconsistencies:
To assist in ensuring that the immigration courts adjudicate cases
fairly and in a timely manner--one of the agency's stated strategic
objectives[Footnote 31]--EOIR has established target time frames for
each of OCIJ's 11 case types.[Footnote 32] Each case type has an
associated case completion goal (the percentage of cases to be
completed within the established time frame). (See table 3 for a list
of case types and their corresponding goals.) The case completion goals
were formulated beginning in June 2000, when EOIR's Director recognized
that not all case types had completion time frames. Some case types had
completion time frames established by law; others had long-standing
agency completion time frames, while some had none. Consequently,
EOIR's Director solicited input from OCIJ regarding the impact and
feasibility of establishing completion goals across all case types.
OCIJ, in turn, solicited input from the immigration judges and court
administrators. Over a 2-year period, EOIR collaborated with OCIJ to
develop case completion goals for immigration courts covering the 11
case types. In May 2002, OCIJ formally implemented these goals. The
courts' success in meeting the goals for 4 of the 11 case types have
been identified as adjudication priorities and are published in DOJ's
annual budget report and "Report on Performance and
Accountability."[Footnote 33] The "Report on Performance and
Accountability" presents DOJ's performance progress as required by the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.[Footnote 34]
Table 3: Current Targeted Case Completion Goals and Completion Rates:
Case type: Detained without applications for relief; Definition: A
detained immigrant does not request relief from the removal; Time goal:
30 days[A];
Percent of cases to be completed within the time goal: 90.
Case type: Non-detained without applications for relief; Definition: A
non-detained immigrant does not request relief from the removal; Time
goal: 240 days[B];
Percent of cases to be completed within the time goal: 90.
Case type: Credible fear review;
Definition: An immigrant seeking to enter the United States does not
have any documents or valid documents to enter but expresses a
"credible fear" of persecution or torture or an intention to apply for
asylum; the immigrant is referred for an interview with a DHS asylum
officer. If the asylum officer believes that the immigrant has not
established a credible fear and a supervisory asylum officer concurs,
the immigrant may request a review of that determination by an
immigration judge. If the immigration judge determines there is
"credible fear," the immigrant will be placed in removal proceedings to
apply for asylum; Time goal: 7 days[C];
Percent of cases to be completed within the time goal: 100.
Case type: Claimed status review;
Definition: An immigrant claims to be a U.S. citizen, to have been
lawfully admitted for permanent residence, to have been admitted as a
refugee, or to have been granted asylum, and DHS determines that the
immigrant has no such claim; the immigrant can obtain a review by the
immigration judge; Time goal: 120 days[B];
Percent of cases to be completed within the time goal: 90.
Case type: Detained with applications for relief other than expedited
asylum; Definition: A detained immigrant requests relief from removal
for reasons other than that of expedited asylum; Time goal: 120
days[A];
Percent of cases to be completed within the time goal: 90.
Case type: Non-detained with applications for relief other than
expedited asylum; Definition: A non-detained immigrant requests relief
from removal for reasons other than expedited asylum; Time goal: 240
days[B];
Percent of cases to be completed within the time goal: 60.
Case type: Institutional hearing program; Definition: The removal
process for an immigrant incarcerated by federal, state, or municipal
correctional authorities as a result of a conviction for a criminal
offense. The hearings are held inside correctional institutions prior
to the immigrant completing his or her criminal sentence; Time goal:
Prior to release[A];
Percent of cases to be completed within the time goal: 90.
Case type: Motions to reopen;
Definition: Either the immigrant or DHS requests the reopening of a
case previously heard by an immigration judge. The motion asks the
judge to consider newly filed or previously unavailable facts or
evidence in a case; Time goal: 60 days[B];
Percent of cases to be completed within the time goal: 90.
Case type: Custody hearings bonds;
Definition: A detained immigrant's release from custody is contingent
on posting a bond to ensure the immigrant's appearance at the
immigration hearing. The immigrant asks the immigration judge to
reconsider the bond set by DHS; Time goal: 3 business days[B];
Percent of cases to be completed within the time goal: 100.
Case type: Expedited asylum affirmative; Definition: An immigrant
requests asylum by filing an asylum application with DHS Asylum Office.
If the asylum application is not approved by DHS, the asylum
application is referred to EOIR within 75 days of filing; Time goal:
180 days[C];
Percent of cases to be completed within the time goal: 90.
Case type: Expedited asylum defensive; Definition: An immigrant
requests asylum by filing an asylum application directly to EOIR in
removal proceedings; Time goal: 180 days[C];
Percent of cases to be completed within the time goal: 90.
Source: GAO based on EOIR data.
[A] A long-standing agency goal established prior to the formal
implementation of the case completion goals.
[B] An internal agency goal established during the formal case
completion goal implementation process.
[C] A goal established by statute and/or regulation.
[End of table]
EOIR documents the immigration courts' success in meeting the case
completion goals for the 11 case types in internal quarterly reports.
According to EOIR, the case completion goal reports are intended to
measure whether the courts are meeting their completion goals, not to
define the total caseload of the courts (all cases awaiting
adjudication).[Footnote 35] In developing these reports, EOIR
management decided to exclude from the measurement certain categories
of cases that, due to extenuating circumstances, are not expected to be
completed within the established goals. For example, DHS is responsible
for conducting background and security checks on all immigrants in
immigration court proceedings. Since the courts cannot grant an
applicant relief from removal until all checks have been favorably
completed, these cases are exempted from case completion goals. As a
result, the number of cases covered by the quarterly reports is less
than the total court caseload. Additionally, depending on what cases
are excluded from the case completion goals, the makeup of the cases
included in the reports can change from one quarter to the next. These
facts are not clearly reflected in the reports themselves.
Our preliminary review of EOIR's quarterly reports identified
inconsistencies in some reports. For example, we noted a recurring
inconsistency between reports: the number of cases awaiting
adjudication at the end of a quarter was not the same as the number of
cases awaiting adjudication at the beginning of the following quarter.
EOIR provided several reasons for the inconsistency, as follows: (1)
the EOIR case management system is a live data base that is constantly
changing as events occur to immigration cases in the courts; (2)
changes occur to the number of cases awaiting adjudication from one
quarter to another when categories of cases are exempted from the case
completion goals, since once a case is exempted it is no longer
included in the reports; (3) cases double entered by DHS in the
automated scheduling system were deleted; (4) reconciliations were
necessary due to changes to date fields to update cases in the data
base; (5) delays in data entry occurred; and (6) programming errors
occurred in the calculation of the data.
We could not evaluate the reasonableness of EOIR's explanation;
however, EOIR's reasons did not appear to explain completely the
inconsistency between the number of cases awaiting adjudication at the
end of the quarter and the number of cases awaiting adjudication at the
beginning of the following quarter. EOIR said that the agency does not
use the quarterly reports to monitor and report on cases awaiting
adjudication; rather, other comprehensive reports serve that purpose.
According to EOIR, the case completion goal reports have a specific
purpose: to report solely on the percentage of cases completed within
the goals for the appropriate reporting period. EOIR stated that it
evaluates the case completion goal data against other sources of data
to ensure the accuracy of the case completion goal data prior to
release within the agency, following established protocols.
We also identified inconsistencies in a 2002 report where the reported
total number of completions did not equal the sum of its components.
EOIR responded to our inquiry about this inconsistency that a
programmer had used the wrong end date for a quarter and therefore
retrieved more cases than should have been included.
EOIR has changed its criteria for compiling the case completion goal
reports over time, as EOIR management has established new
specifications to identify the cases to be included in the case
completion goals. When the agency approves categories of cases to be
excluded from the reports, the queries used to run the reports are
updated accordingly. EOIR reported that it maintains the historical
documentation of the changes it has made to the reports through memos
approved by EOIR management outlining each change in the case
completion goal criteria. However, EOIR does not maintain the
individual queries used to run each of the prior quarterly reports; it
only maintains the current set of queries. As a result, we could not
replicate the past reports to determine the accuracy of the case
completion goal data. The inconsistencies indicate that EOIR should
maintain appropriate documentation to demonstrate the accuracy of data
reported by EOIR.
Peer Evaluations Used to Evaluate Court Operations:
Another means that EOIR/OCIJ uses to evaluate its courts' performance
is peer evaluation--its Immigration Court Evaluation Program (ICEP).
The ICEP was established in July 1997 to evaluate court operations
based on objectives established by OCIJ, identify challenges to
achieving agency goals, and recommend appropriate corrective
measures.[Footnote 36] The evaluation program seeks to make
recommendations for improving court operations by evaluating the
courts' organizational structure, caseload, and workflow processes to
assess the efficiency of the court in accomplishing its mission.
Judges' individual hearing decisions are the only aspect of court
operations that are not evaluated.
OCIJ established a Court Evaluation Unit (CEU) to manage the
coordination and operation of the court evaluation program. The CEU
selects courts to be evaluated, notifies the courts being selected,
prepares an evaluation schedule, and sends out pre-evaluation
questionnaires. While the Chief Immigration Judge selects the
evaluation team members, the CEU is responsible for training the
evaluation team as well as identifying a team leader. The evaluation
team is comprised of volunteers of one or more immigration judge(s),
court administrator(s), court interpreter(s), and legal technician(s).
The participation of team members from diverse courts and positions is
intended to facilitate the exchange of information regarding best
practices of court operations. The size of the evaluation team depends
on the size of the court being evaluated. For example, in fiscal year
2004, the team that evaluated the Bradenton immigration court in
Florida, a small court with 2 authorized full-time permanent
immigration judges, consisted of 3 team members, while the team that
evaluated the Miami immigration court in Florida, a large court with 21
authorized full-time permanent immigration judges, had 13 members. OCIJ
has established an evaluation program cycle in which approximately 10
to 12 courts have been evaluated per year. Each court has typically
been evaluated approximately once every 4 years.
During the onsite visit, the evaluation team gathers information about
the court under review in a variety of ways. The evaluation team
conducts interviews with local court personnel, DHS officials, and
members of the private bar. Evaluation team members select and review a
random sample of court files and administrative records maintained by
the court. While conducting interviews and reviewing court
documentation, the evaluation team assesses aspects of court
operations: immigration court initiatives, security, case management
and case processing, DHS/immigration bar relations, administrative
operations, and database management.
As shown in figure 5, the ICEP is comprised of a five-stage process.
Following the week long onsite visit, the evaluation team summarizes
the evaluation findings and recommendations and prepares a draft report
for the Chief Immigration Judge's review. Within 10 business days of
receipt of the draft report, the evaluated court is to submit written
comments on the draft report.[Footnote 37] After reviewing the draft
report and court's comments, the Chief Immigration Judge prepares an
action plan addressing the draft report's specific recommendations--the
action plan clarifies which corrective actions will be taken, who will
be responsible for completing that action, and the date by which the
action must be completed. Approximately 3 months after completion of
the action plan, the court must submit a written "Self-Certification"
attesting to the actions taken to implement the action plan.[Footnote
38] After receipt of the self-certification, the CEU drafts a final
report for the Deputy Chief Immigration Judge's signature. After the
court evaluation process is complete, the final evaluation report is
distributed to the EOIR Director and Deputy Director, the Chief
Immigration Judge, the Deputy Chief Immigration Judges, the responsible
ACIJ, the liaison immigration judge and court administrator for the
evaluated court, the chief clerk of the immigration court, all
evaluation team members, and the CEU program analyst.
Figure 4: OCIJ Immigration Court Evaluation Process:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
EOIR/OCIJ Monitors Complaints against Immigration Judges:
EOIR/OCIJ also monitors complaints against immigration judges, a
practice that began in October 2003, at the direction of the EOIR
Director. Since then, complaint reports have been generated on a
monthly basis for internal use only. According to EOIR, the goal of the
reports is to provide a centralized and comprehensive compilation of
written and oral complaints to EOIR management regarding immigration
judges' conduct on the bench, as well as the status of those
complaints. OCIJ sends the reports to the EOIR Director on a monthly
basis.
Complaints against immigration judges are received from a variety of
sources, including immigrants, the immigrants' attorneys, DHS trial
attorneys, other immigration judges, other court staff, OCIJ
headquarters staff, and others. They are raised to OCIJ management
either orally or in writing, primarily from the ACIJ with supervisory
responsibility over the affected immigration judge.[Footnote 39] In
meetings with the DHS components and the American Immigration Lawyers
Association, EOIR said that it has advised them that their employees or
members should raise complaints, as issues arise, to the appropriate
ACIJ. According to EOIR, OCIJ is to immediately notify the EOIR
Director when a complaint is filed against an immigration judge, even
if OCIJ has not had an opportunity to verify the accuracy of the
allegation.
According to EOIR, the ACIJ with supervisory responsibility over the
affected immigration judge is the responsible party for addressing the
complaint, unless a referral to DOJ's Office of Professional
Responsibility is deemed warranted. The Office of Professional
Responsibility, which reports directly to the Attorney General, is
responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct involving
Department attorneys, investigators, or law enforcement personnel,
where the allegations relate to the exercise of the authority of an
attorney to investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice. Once a
referral is deemed warranted, either OCIJ, through EOIR's Office of
General Counsel, or the Office of General Counsel can refer a matter to
the Office of Professional Responsibility for investigation. Matters
involving criminal or serious administrative misconduct such as an
allegation that a judge had a business relationship with an immigration
attorney are referred to the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General.
According to its complaint reports, OCIJ received 129 complaints
against immigration judges during fiscal years 2001 through 2005. As of
September 30, 2005, OCIJ had taken action on 121 of these complaints;
the remaining 8 were still under review. In response to the 121
complaints, OCIJ took 134 actions.[Footnote 40] The actions taken were
as follows: about 25 percent (34) were found to have no merit; about 25
percent resulted in disciplinary actions against the judges that
included counseling (18), written reprimand (9), oral reprimand (3),
and suspension (4); about 22 percent (29) were referred to DOJ's Office
of Professional Responsibility or Office of the Inspector General or
EOIR's Office of General Counsel for further review;[Footnote 41] and
the remaining 28 percent (37) resulted in various other actions such as
informing complainants of the Office of Professional Responsibility
process or their appeal rights to BIA.
In January 2006, the Attorney General requested a comprehensive review
of the immigration courts, to include the quality of work as well as
the manner in which it is performed. According to DOJ officials, the
review was initiated in part in response to complaints about the
professionalism of immigration judges, including their treatment of the
people appearing before them and the quality of their work. The review
included, among other things, interviews with selected court personnel,
private attorneys and immigration organizations, observations of court
hearings, and on-line surveys of other court personnel and DHS trial
attorneys. On August 9, 2006, the Attorney General announced the
completion of the review and a number of reforms to improve the
performance and quality of the immigration court system. They include,
among other reforms, the establishment of performance evaluations for
immigration judges; the development of an immigration law examination
for newly appointed immigration judges; the hiring of more immigration
judges and judicial law clerks; and improvements in technology and
support to strengthen the courts' ability to record, transcribe, and
interpret court proceedings.
Conclusions:
EOIR and its immigration courts play a critical role in upholding
immigration law. Immigrants depend upon the courts to ensure the timely
and fair adjudication of their cases, and U.S. residents depend upon
the courts to order the removal of individuals from the United States
who lack a legal right to be here. If the increase in caseload
continues to outpace the growth in the number of immigration judges,
the strain on the immigration courts will likely intensify. Given these
conditions, EOIR will be challenged to judiciously manage its caseload
and improve its courts' performance. EOIR has taken steps to improve
the immigration courts' performance. As part of this process, EOIR has
used quarterly case completion goal reports that contained
inconsistencies. However, EOIR's lack of historical data on the
individual queries used to run each quarterly report precluded our
ability to replicate the data and determine the accuracy of the
reports. By better documenting its case completion goal data, EOIR
would enable users of the data, including members of its management, to
better understand exactly what is being measured and the data's
implications for the courts' efficiency.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To more accurately and consistently reflect the immigration courts'
progress in the timely adjudication of immigration cases, we recommend
that the Director of EOIR (1) maintain appropriate documentation to
demonstrate the accuracy of case completion goal reports; and (2)
clearly state what cases are being counted in the reports.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
After reviewing a draft of this report, EOIR responded in an e-mail
that it concurred with GAO's recommendations. EOIR also provided
technical comments, which we have included as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from its date. At that time, we will send copies to the Attorney
General, the Director of EOIR, and interested congressional committees.
We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions about this report or wish to discuss it
further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or jonespl@gao.gov.
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors
to this report can be found in appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Paul L. Jones:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Our objectives in this report are to answer the following questions:
(1) in recent years, what has been the trend in immigration courts'
caseload, (2) how does the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ)
assign and manage immigration court caseload, and (3) how does the
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)/OCIJ evaluate the
immigration courts' performance?
To address these objectives, we met with officials from the Department
of Justice's EOIR headquarters to obtain information and documentation
on caseload trends, caseload management, and evaluation of immigration
courts. To gain a better understanding of the operations and management
of immigration courts, we also visited four immigration courts--
Arlington in Arlington, Virginia; Newark in Newark, New Jersey; and two
courts in New York City, New York. We selected these four courts to
include courts varying in size,[Footnote 42] based on the number of
immigration judges. At these locations, we observed court proceedings
and met with immigration judges, court administrators, and attorneys
that litigate cases before the immigration courts--attorneys from the
Office of Chief Counsel of DHS's Immigration and Customs Enforcement
and private bar attorneys. Furthermore, we obtained and analyzed case
information contained in EOIR's case management system as well as
staffing data for fiscal years 2000 through 2005 and OCIJ's reports for
court evaluations conducted in fiscal years 2000 and 2004. We also
interviewed representatives of the National Association of Immigration
Judges, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and the American
Bar Association, Commission on Immigration.
To address the first objective concerning the trend in immigration
courts' caseload in recent years, we reviewed data from EOIR's case
management system, Automated Nationwide System for Immigration Review,
and obtained and reviewed relevant documents, regulations, and policies
pertaining to the immigration courts' caseload and factors affecting
caseload. We assessed the reliability of those data needed to answer
this objective by (1) performing electronic testing for obvious errors
in accuracy and completeness, (2) reviewing related documentation about
the data and the system that produced them, including a contractor's
report on data verification of the case management system, and (3)
interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
this report. From this system, we generated immigration court caseload
data for fiscal years 2000 through 2005 for all cases--proceedings,
bond redeterminations, and motions to reopen or reconsider---and
analyzed them for accuracy and completeness. Using SAS software, based
on criteria provided by EOIR, we generated and reviewed unique data at
both the global and immigration court level, on the number of newly
filed cases, cases awaiting adjudication, completed cases, and in
absentia decisions, as well as the age of proceedings awaiting
adjudication.
To address the second objective concerning how OCIJ assigns and manages
immigration courts' caseload, we conducted interviews with OCIJ
officials, conducted site visits to four immigration courts, and
reviewed EOIR's authorized and on-board staffing data for fiscal years
2000 through 2005, as well as their procedures for detailing
immigration judges. We also reviewed policies, procedures, and other
documents relating to OCIJ's caseload management. According to EOIR,
the staffing data are from the Department of Agriculture's National
Finance Center database, which handles payroll and personnel data for
DOJ and other agencies. While we did not independently verify the
reliability of the staffing data, we compared them with other
supporting documents, when available, to determine data consistency and
reasonableness.
To address the third objective concerning how EOIR/OCIJ evaluates the
immigration courts' performance, we obtained and reviewed from EOIR
internal quarterly case completion goal reports for fiscal years 2001
to 2005; documents concerning the establishment and refinement of the
case completion goals; 22 court evaluation reports and related
documents for the 12 immigration courts evaluated in fiscal years 2000
and 2004; and monthly reports containing information on complaints
against immigration judges received in fiscal years 2001 to 2005.
Further, we reviewed relevant memos and documents prepared by EOIR
officials pertaining to EOIR's monitoring and evaluation programs, as
well as the Department of Justice's "Report on Performance and
Accountability" and budgets for fiscal years 2000 through 2005. To
assess the reliability of EOIR's case completion goal reports, we (1)
performed logic testing of the data for obvious inconsistencies in
accuracy and completeness and (2) interviewed and sent questions to
agency officials knowledgeable about the reports. We also reviewed the
relevant internal control standards for such reports. When we found
inconsistencies in the reports we brought them to the EOIR officials'
attention and they provided reasons for the inconsistencies. However,
we could not evaluate the reasonableness of EOIR's explanations of the
inconsistencies or the overall reliability of each of its quarterly
reports because EOIR has changed its criteria for compiling the reports
over time and only maintains documentation on the current set of
queries used to run the reports. Therefore, we determined that the data
in the quarterly reports were not sufficiently reliable for purposes of
this report.
We conducted our work from March 2005 through August 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Glossary:
Adjustment of status:
A type of relief from deportation, removal, or exclusion for an
immigrant who is eligible for Lawful Permanent Resident status based on
a visa petition approved by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The status of an immigrant may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in
his discretion, to that of a lawful permanent resident if a visa
petition on behalf of the immigrant has been approved, an immigrant
visa is immediately available at the time of the immigrant's
application for adjustment of status, and the immigrant is not
otherwise inadmissible to the United States.
Affirmative asylum application:
An asylum application initially filed with DHS's U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services.
Application for relief:
Immigrants may request a number of forms of relief or protection from
removal such as asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the
Convention Against Torture, adjustment of status, or cancellation of
removal. Many forms of relief require the immigrant to fill out an
appropriate application.
Asylum:
An immigrant may be eligible for protection and immunity from removal
if he or she can show that he or she is a "refugee." The Immigration
and Nationality Act generally defines a refugee as any person who is
outside his or her country of nationality or, in the case of a person
having no nationality, is outside any county in which such person last
habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is
unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of,
that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of
persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion. Immigrants generally
must apply for asylum within 1 year of arrival in the United States. In
the absence of exceptional circumstances, final administrative
adjudication of the asylum application, not including administrative
appeal, must be completed within 180 days after the date the
application is filed.
Bond:
The DHS may detain an immigrant who is in removal or deportation
proceedings and may condition his or her release from custody upon the
posting of a bond to ensure the immigrant's appearance at the hearing.
The amount of money set by DHS as a condition of release is known as a
bond. A bond may be as a condition of voluntary departure at the master
calendar, and a bond must be set by an immigration judge as a condition
for allowing an immigrant to voluntarily leave the country at the
conclusion of proceedings.
Bond redetermination:
When DHS has set a bond amount as a condition for release from custody
or has determined not to release the immigrant on bond, the immigrant
has the right to ask an immigration judge to redetermine the bond. In a
bond redetermination hearing, the judge can raise, lower, or maintain
the amount of the bond; however, the Immigration and Nationality Act
provides that bond of at least $1,500 is required before an immigrant
may be released. In addition, the immigration judge can eliminate the
bond; or change any of the bond conditions over which the immigration
court has authority. The bond redetermination hearing is completely
separate from the removal or deportation hearing. It is not recorded
and has no bearing on the subsequent removal or deportation proceeding.
The immigrant and/or DHS may appeal the immigration judge's bond
redetermination decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Cancellation of removal:
There are two different forms of cancellation of removal:
(A) Cancellation of removal for certain lawful permanent residents who
were admitted more than 5 years ago, have resided in the United States
for 7 or more years, and have not been convicted of an aggravated
felony. Application for this form of discretionary relief is made
during the course of a hearing before an immigration judge.
(B) Cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for certain
nonpermanent resident immigrants who have maintained continuous
physical presence in the United States for 10 years and have met all
the other statutory requirements for such relief. Application for this
form of discretionary relief is made during the course of a hearing
before an immigration judge. The status of an immigrant who is granted
cancellation of removal for certain nonpermanent resident immigrants is
adjusted to that of an immigrant lawfully admitted for permanent
residence.
Cases:
All proceedings, bond redeterminations, and motions to reopen or
reconsider that are before the immigration courts.
Case awaiting adjudication:
A case that has not been completed.
Case completion:
A case is considered completed once an immigration judge renders a
decision. Proceedings may also be completed for other reasons, such as
administrative closures, changes of venue, and transfers.
Caseload:
All cases awaiting adjudication.
Change of venue:
lmmigration judges, for good cause shown, may change venue (move the
proceeding to another immigration court) only upon motion by one of the
parties, after the charging document has been filed with the
immigration court. The regulation provides that venue may be changed
only after one of the parties has filed a motion to change venue and
the other party has been given notice and an opportunity to respond.
Charging document:
A written instrument prepared by DHS charging an immigrant with a
violation of immigration law.
Claimed status review:
If an immigrant in expedited removal proceedings claims under oath to
be a U.S. citizen, to have been lawfully admitted for permanent
residence, to have been admitted as a refugee, or to have been granted
asylum, and DHS determines that the immigrant has no such claim, he or
she can obtain a review of that claim by an immigration judge.
Credible fear:
If an immigrant seeking to enter the United States has no documents or
no valid documents to enter, but expresses a fear of persecution or
torture, or an intention to apply for asylum, that immigrant will be
referred to a DHS asylum officer for a credible fear determination. If
the asylum officer determines that the immigrant has not established a
credible fear of persecution or torture and a supervisory asylum
officer concurs, the immigrant may request review of that determination
by an immigration judge. That review must be concluded as expeditiously
as possible, to the maximum extent practicable within 24 hours, but in
no event later than 7 days after the date of the determination by the
supervisory asylum officer. No appeal to the Board of lmmigration
Appeals may be taken from the immigration judge's decision finding no
credible fear of persecution or torture. If the immigration judge
determines that the immigrant has a credible fear of persecution or
torture, the immigrant will be placed in removal proceedings to apply
for asylum.
Decision:
A determination and order arrived at after consideration of facts and
law, by an immigration judge.
Defensive asylum application:
An asylum application initially filed with the immigration court after
the immigrant has been put into proceedings to remove him or her from
the United States.
Detained:
Detained immigrants are those in the custody of DHS or other entities.
lmmigration court hearings for detained immigrants are conducted in DHS
Service Processing Centers, contract detention facilities, state and
local government jails, and Bureau of Prisons' institutions.
Expedited asylum:
Asylum regulations implemented in 1995 mandated that asylum
applications be processed within 180 days after filing either at a DHS
U.S. Citizenship and lmmigration Services Asylum Office or at an
immigration court. The Illegal lmmigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 reiterated the 180-day rule. Consequently,
expedited processing of asylum applications occurs when (1) an
immigrant files "affirmatively" at an Asylum Office on or after January
4, 1995, and the application is referred to the EOIR by DHS within 75
days of the filing; or (2) an immigrant files an application
"defensively" with EOlR on or after January 4, 1995.
Filing:
A filing occurs with the actual receipt of a document by the
appropriate immigration court.
lmmigration judge:
lmmigration judge is an attorney whom the Attorney General appoints as
an administrative judge within EOIR, qualified to conduct specified
classes of proceedings, including exclusion, deportation, removal,
asylum, bond redetermination, rescission, withholding, credible fear,
reasonable fear, and claimed status review. lmmigration judges act as
independent decision makers in deciding the matters before them.
lmmigration judge decisions are administratively final unless appealed
or certified to the Board of lmmigration Appeals, or if the period by
which to file an appeal lapses.
In absentia:
A Latin phrase meaning "in the absence of." An in absentia hearing
occurs when an immigrant fails to appear for a hearing and the
immigration judge conducts the hearing without the immigrant present
and orders the immigrant removed from the United States. An immigration
judge is to order removed in absentia any immigrant who, after written
notice of the time and place of proceedings and the consequences of
failing to appear, fails to appear at his or her removal proceeding.
The DHS must establish by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence
that the written notice was provided and that the immigrant is
removable.
Inadmissible:
The Illegal lmmigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
replaced the term "excludable" with the term "inadmissible." Section
212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act defines classes of
immigrants ineligible to receive visas and ineligible for admission.
Immigrants who, at the time of entry, are within one of these classes
of inadmissible immigrants are removable.
Individual merits hearing:
The hearing in which the government must prove the charges alleged in
the charging document. The immigrant also is able to present his or her
case to the immigration judge with witnesses and persuade the
immigration judge to use his or her discretion and allow the immigrant
to remain in the United States (if such relief exists).
Institutional hearing program:
The lmmigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 requires the Attorney
General to expeditiously commence immigration proceedings for immigrant
inmates convicted of crimes in the United States. To meet this
requirement, the Department of Justice established the Institutional
Hearing Program where removal hearings are held inside correctional
institutions prior to the immigrant completing his or her criminal
sentence. The Institutional Hearing Program is a collaborative effort
between EOIR and DHS and various federal, state, and local corrections
agencies throughout the country.
Master calendar:
A preliminary hearing held to review the charges in the charging
document before an immigration judge. The immigration judge explains
the immigrant's rights (e.g., the immigrant's right to an attorney) and
asks if the immigrant agrees with or denies the charges as alleged by
DHS in the charging document. The immigration judge determines if the
immigrant is eligible for any form(s) of relief, and sets a date for
the individual merits hearing.
Motion:
A motion is a formal request from either party (the immigrant or DHS)
in proceedings before the immigration court, to carry out an action or
make a decision. Motions include, for example, motions for change of
venue, motions for continuance, motions to terminate proceedings, etc.
Motion to reconsider:
Immigrants may request, by motion, the reconsideration of a case
previously heard by an immigration judge. A motion to reconsider either
identifies an error in law or fact in a prior proceeding or identifies
a change in law and asks the immigration judge to re-examine his or her
ruling. A motion to reconsider is based on the existing record and does
not seek to introduce new facts or evidence.
Motion to reopen:
Either party makes a formal request before the immigration court to
reopen the case.
Non-detained:
The status of an immigrant who is not in the custody of DHS or the
Institutional Hearing Program.
Notice to Appear:
The document (Form 1-862) used by DHS to charge an immigrant with being
removable from the United States. Jurisdiction vests and proceedings
commence when a Notice to Appear is filed with an immigration court by
DHS.
Proceeding:
The legal process conducted before the immigration court.
Relief from removal:
In hearings before an immigration judge, an immigrant may be able to
seek relief from removal. Various types of relief may be sought,
including asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the
Convention Against Torture, cancellation of removal, or adjustment of
status. Many forms of relief require the immigrant to fill out an
appropriate application.
Removal proceedings:
An immigration court proceeding begun on or after April 1, 1997,
seeking to either stop certain immigrants from being admitted to the
United States or to remove them from the United States. A removal case
usually arises when DHS alleges that an immigrant is inadmissible to
the United States, has entered the country illegally by crossing the
border without being inspected by an immigration officer, or has
violated the terms of his or her admission. The DHS issues a charging
document called a Notice to Appear and files it with an immigration
court to begin a removal proceeding.
Voluntary departure:
An immigrant agrees to depart from the United States without an order
of removal. The departure may or may not have been preceded by a
hearing before an immigration judge. An immigrant allowed to
voluntarily depart concedes removability but is not barred from seeking
admission at a port of entry in the future. Failure to depart within
the time granted results in a fine and a 10-year bar against the
immigrant applying for several forms of relief from removal.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Paul L. Jones (202) 512-8777:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Eric Bachhuber, Frances Cook,
Katherine Davis, Evan Gilman, Clarette Kim, Grant Mallie, Katrina Moss,
Sandra Tasic, Margaret Vo, and Robert White made key contributions to
this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Jeffrey S. Passel, The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized
Migrant Population in the U.S.: Estimates Based on the March 2005
Current Population Survey, Pew Hispanic Center (Washington, D.C.: March
2006).
[2] Immigration judges are appointed by the Attorney General for the
purpose of conducting formal, quasi-judicial proceedings involving the
rights of immigrants to enter or remain in the United States.
[3] Until March 1, 2003, there were two DOJ components with immigration
responsibilities: INS and EOIR. Under the Homeland Security Act of
2002, signed into law on November 25, 2002, INS was transferred to the
new DHS as of March 2003. The Attorney General retained authority over
EOIR, within DOJ, with no immediate changes to EOIR's components or
jurisdiction. At DHS, the INS enforcement functions became part of the
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection. The immigration services function of the former INS
is housed in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at DHS.
[4] For this report, the term "cases" refers to proceedings, bond
redeterminations, and motions to reopen or reconsider (for definitions
of these terms see the glossary in app. II).
[5] EOIR categorizes courts according to the number of judges. While
some courts only have a single judge, small courts have 2 to 4 judges;
medium courts, 5 to 14 judges; and large courts, 15 or more judges.
[6] As attorneys, immigration judges are appointed under Schedule A in
the excepted service. To be minimally qualified, an applicant must have
a Bachelor of Laws or a Juris Doctor degree and be duly licensed and
authorized to practice law as an attorney under the laws of a state,
territory, or the District of Columbia; be a U.S. citizen; and have a
minimum of 7 years relevant post-bar admission legal experience at the
time the application is submitted, with one year experience equivalent
to the GS-15 level in the federal service.
[7] BIA also hears appeals of certain decisions made by DHS district
directors or other immigration officials.
[8] According to EOIR, it plans to systematically reduce the number of
cases pending longer than 1 year in the immigration courts.
[9] In fiscal year 2005, the immigration courts also had 31 judicial
law clerks who assisted immigration judges by researching case law and
providing other legal support as required.
[10] As of May 1, 2006, there were 230 authorized immigration judges.
[11] The following staff is included: clerks, legal technicians,
supervisory legal technicians, and administrative assistants.
[12] The primary function of the interpreters is to interpret in a
manner that allows the immigrant, immigration judge, and attorneys to
understand the proceedings as if no language barrier existed. However,
according to EOIR, most interpreters perform clerical tasks when they
are not interpreting. In addition to the authorized interpreters, the
immigration courts use contract interpreters to provide language
translation. EOIR estimates that about 85 percent of the courts' cases
require the use of an interpreter.
[13] As of May 1, 2006, three of the nine ACIJ positions were vacant.
[14] While the ACIJs have supervisory authority for the immigration
judges, the judges are not subject to a performance appraisal system
(excluded by the Office of Personnel Management pursuant to 5 C.F.R. §
430.202(c)). The ACIJs also do not review the immigration judges'
decisions, which are reviewed only on appeal before the BIA.
[15] Unlike the other immigration courts, the headquarters immigration
court does not accept the filing of charging documents. Charging
documents are filed at the other immigration courts. The headquarters
court assists the other courts by adjudicating some of their cases.
[16] In addition to the immigration courts, EOIR has designated other
locations where hearings can take place. EOIR refers to these locations
as hearing locations.
[17] The Fishkill immigration court does not have an immigration judge
authorized. Rather, the judge in the Ulster immigration court in New
York normally hears cases from that court. However, the Ulster judge
position is currently vacant; therefore, cases from both the Fishkill
and Ulster courts are heard by judges from the New York City
immigration court. In addition, the Fishkill court shares a court
administrator with two other courts.
[18] In fiscal year 2005, proceedings accounted for about 93 percent of
all cases, with bond redeterminations and motions accounting for about
5 and 2 percent, respectively. About 99 percent of the proceedings were
removal proceedings. See the glossary in app. II for definitions of
proceedings, bond redeterminations, and motions to reopen or
reconsider.
[19] Beginning April 1, 1997, the distinction between exclusion and
deportation proceedings was eliminated, and immigrants subject to
removal from the United States were all placed in removal proceedings.
Thus, according to EOIR, the removal proceeding is generally the sole
procedure for determining whether an immigrant is inadmissible,
deportable, or eligible for relief from removal. Certain cases are
subject to pre-April 1, 1997, legal standards and are therefore still
referred to as exclusion or deportation proceedings.
[20] The immigration court that receives the case has jurisdiction over
the case unless a change of venue has been requested by the immigrant
or DHS. Once a case has been assigned to an immigration judge, only the
assigned judge may rule on a motion for a change of venue, unless the
judge is unavailable to complete his or her duties.
[21] EOIR does not have jurisdiction over an immigrant's case unless
DHS files a charging document with EOIR.
[22] According to EOIR, in most removal proceedings, immigrants concede
that they are removable, but then apply for one or more forms of relief
from removal. Immigration law provides relief from removal to
immigrants who meet specific eligibility criteria. The immigrant has
the burden of proving that he or she is eligible for relief under the
law, and usually that he or she deserves such relief as an exercise of
discretion. For definitions of asylum, adjustment of status,
cancellation of removal, and voluntary departure, see the glossary in
app. II.
[23] According to EOIR, there was an increase in the number of DHS
charging documents that did not have the address of the immigrant,
which, in turn, resulted in an in absentia decision. By regulation, if
the immigrant fails to provide his or her address as required by law,
actual written notice is not required for an immigration judge to
proceed with an in absentia hearing.
[24] During the same period, the number of authorized immigration
judges increased about 7 percent, from 211 to 225.
[25] According to EOIR, there has been an increase in the number of
visa petitions pending at DHS for beneficiaries who are also in removal
proceedings. An immigration judge cannot proceed on the immigrant's
request for relief from removal in the form of adjustment of status
until the visa petition has been adjudicated by DHS.
[26] With the exception of two courts, the same case management system
is used. Courts in Arlington, Virginia, and Seattle, Washington, are
piloting a new case management system.
[27] A case that has a motion to reopen or a case remanded from the BIA
is usually assigned to the immigration judge that had initially
adjudicated the case.
[28] OCIJ will select judges for details if it does not get volunteers.
[29] According to EOIR, in fiscal year 2003, the Detroit immigration
court had 5,916 newly filed cases including 603 for Cincinnati, 1,385
for Cleveland, and 553 for Louisville. The Detroit court, which had
three immigration judges, lacked the physical facilities to expand
beyond the three judges. To address the Detroit court's large caseload,
OCIJ added an additional judge to the Arlington court and transferred
the Cincinnati and Cleveland cases to the Arlington court. The
Louisville cases were transferred to the Memphis court, which had two
judges with 1,420 newly filed cases.
[30] According to EOIR, if a new immigration court opens, the Chief
Immigration Judge will announce transfer opportunities and set a
deadline for transfer requests. The Chief Immigration Judge will
consider the transfer requests in order of seniority. EOIR said that it
also closed two immigration courts during this period.
[31] The goals were also established to assist management in
identifying areas that need improvement and in allocating resources
better.
[32] The case types are based on the status of the immigrant, for
example, whether the immigrant is detained or non-detained and whether
the immigrant has filed an application for relief.
[33] In these reports, EOIR combined two of the four case types.
[34] The four case types identified as adjudication priorities for OCIJ
are immigration court cases involving (1) detained immigrants that do
not file an application for relief, (2) immigrants seeking expedited
asylum affirmatively as a form of relief, (3) immigrants seeking
expedited asylum defensively as a form of relief, and (4) the
Institutional Hearing Program.
[35] EOIR's Office of Planning Analysis and Technology uses data from
its case management system to calculate how well the courts are meeting
the case completion goals. The office uses a structure query language
to convert data from its case management system and to generate the
case completion goal data. Structure query language is a standardized
language for retrieving and updating data in relational databases and
tables, which allows a user to generate counts and statistics, select
records or fields, and merge tables. For each of the 11 case types,
EOIR's queries count the total number of cases awaiting adjudication at
the start of a quarter, the total number of newly filed cases, the
total number of completions (both cases awaiting adjudication at the
start of a quarter and newly filed cases), the total number of cases
that were completed within goal, and the total number of cases awaiting
adjudication at the end of a quarter.
[36] Its predecessor was the Field Office Case Management Review
Program, which was primarily a file review that had been in existence
since 1988. According to EOIR, the Chief Immigration Judge determined
that this evaluation program was insufficient in scope to adequately
fulfill his responsibility for evaluating the performance of the
courts, making appropriate reports and inspections, and taking
corrective action where indicated. As such, the ICEP program was
developed to give the Chief Immigration Judge increased oversight of
the courts.
[37] The court response is prepared by the court administrator and the
liaison immigration judge for the court being evaluated. Judges serve
on a rotational basis as the liaison judge to act as the point of
contact regarding topics and issues between the immigration judges and
the responsible ACIJ, the court administrator, the local private bar,
the local DHS office, and other appropriate local contacts such as
local law schools. Liaison judges do not have any supervisory
responsibilities.
[38] Prior to fiscal year 2003, the evaluation team leader conducted a
follow-up visit to assess progress made in implementing the
recommendations and prepared a report. However, due to budgetary
constraints, this practice was discontinued. Beginning in fiscal year
2003, the court administrator, liaison immigration judge, and the ACIJ
were required to submit the self-certification of actions taken.
[39] According to EOIR, the ACIJs routinely deal with operational
issues that fall short of a complaint.
[40] A complaint may be associated with more than one action.
[41] According to OCIJ's complaint reports, of the 29 complaints that
were referred to these offices, 17 were still pending. In closing the
other 12 complaints, these offices found 8 complaints to have no merit.
However, for three of these complaints, OCIJ counseled or gave a
written warning to the immigration judges despite finding no ethical
violations. In response to the remaining 4 closed complaints, OCIJ took
disciplinary actions against the judges that included counseling (2),
written reprimand (2), and suspension (1).
[42] EOIR categorizes courts according to the number of judges. While
some courts only have a single judge, small courts have 2 to 4 judges;
medium courts, 5 to 14 judges; and large courts, 15 or more judges.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
