Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: Removal Without Recourse: The Growth of Summary Deportations from the United States By The Immigration Policy Center

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: Removal Without Recourse: The Growth of Summary Deportations from the United States By The Immigration Policy Center

    Removal Without Recourse: The Growth of Summary Deportations from the United States By The Immigration Policy Center

    by


    The deportation process has been transformed drastically over the last two decades. Today, two-thirds of individuals deported are subject to what are known as “summary removal procedures,” which deprive them of both the right to appear before a judge and the right to apply for status in the United States. In 1996, as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), Congress established streamlined deportation procedures that allow the government to deport (or “remove”) certain noncitizens from the United States without a hearing before an immigration judge. Two of these procedures, “expedited removal” and “reinstatement of removal,” allow immigration officers to serve as both prosecutor and judge—often investigating, charging, and making a decision all within the course of one day. These rapid deportation decisions often fail to take into account many critical factors, including whether the individual is eligible to apply for lawful status in the United States, whether he or she has long-standing ties here, or whether he or she has U.S.-citizen family members.

    In recent years, summary procedures have eclipsed traditional immigration court proceedings, accounting for the dramatic increase in removals overall. As the chart below demonstrates, since 1996, the number of deportations executed under summary removal procedures—including expedited removal, reinstatement of removal, and stipulated removal (all described below)—has dramatically increased.

     

    In Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, more than 70 percent of all people Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported were subject to summary removal procedures.

    Expedited Removal (INA § 235(b))

    In FY 2013, ICE deported about 101,000 people through the expedited removal process. Expedited removal is a summary process for formally deporting certain noncitizens who do not have proper entry documents and who are seeking entry to the United States at a port of entry (POE), such as a border crossing or an airport, or who are found within 100 miles of the border. Specifically, it applies only if the immigration officer determines that an individual:

    • committed fraud or misrepresented a material fact for purposes of seeking entry to the United States;
    • falsely claimed U.S. citizenship; or
    • is not in possession of a valid visa or other required documentation.

    When expedited removal was first enacted, immigration officers applied it only to people who were seeking entry to the United States and not to those who were already in the United States. However, in 2004, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) drastically expanded the scope of expedited removal by deciding that noncitizens encountered within 100 air miles of the southwest border who have not been present in the United States for the 14 days immediately prior to the date of encounter can be subject to expedited removal. In 2006, DHS announced that it would implement this policy along all of the U.S. borders.

    A person subject to expedited removal is immediately ordered removed without any further hearing, review, or opportunity to apply to stay in the United States unless the person expresses a fear of persecution, in which case he or she is afforded a “credible fear interview” to determine whether he or she may apply for asylum. The process is so truncated that frequently a person with an expedited removal order has no idea why he or she was deported. Individuals subject to expedited removal generally are not informed of their right to counsel. Likewise, they are not provided a sufficient opportunity to contact counsel to help them challenge the charges against them or present evidence that is not with them at the time of apprehension.

    As a result, expedited removal can lead to erroneous deportations of individuals who are not deportable or who would be eligible to apply for lawful status in the United States or to seek prosecutorial discretion if processed through normal immigration court procedures. In addition, individuals who may have resided in the United States for decades, and left only for a brief period of time, may be deported pursuant to expedited removal despite having significant ties to the United States. Those subject to expedited removal are automatically barred from returning to the United States for five years. In cases where an expedited removal order is based on a false claim of U.S. citizenship, an individual is permanently barred from re-entering the country.

    Reinstatement of Removal (INA § 241(a)(5))

    In FY 2013, 159,634 individuals were deported based on a reinstatement of removal order, a 270 percent increase from 2005. Reinstatement of removal applies to noncitizens who return illegally to the United States after having previously been deported. Essentially, DHS “reinstates” the original removal order without considering the individual’s current situation, reasons for returning to the United States, or the presence of flaws in the original removal proceedings. They even may apply it to someone whose initial deportation order was entered in absentia. A person whose order is reinstated is barred from applying to remain in the United States or from seeking to correct any errors that may have occurred in the original deportation. The primary exception to this rule is that an individual who expresses a fear of return during the reinstatement process must be referred to an asylum officer for screening for eligibility for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture.

    Unlike expedited removal, immigration officers may use the reinstatement process anywhere throughout the United States—not just at a POE or within 100 miles of the border. Most persons subject to reinstatement are arrested and kept in custody throughout the process without an opportunity to seek a bond. The process is designed to allow DHS to remove individuals immediately; the entire process (including the removal) may occur within 24 hours. Typically, the DHS officer conducts a short interrogation to determine whether the individual has a prior removal order, actually is the person identified in the prior order, and has unlawfully reentered. At the conclusion of the interrogation, the person is afforded an opportunity to make a statement and, thereafter, the officer typically issues the final order. The process usually happens too quickly for an individual to consult with a lawyer to assist in challenging the reinstatement.

    Stipulated Removal (INA § 240(d))

    Stipulated removal orders are different from expedited removal orders and reinstated removal orders in that the person is formally charged and placed in immigration court proceedings before an immigration judge. However, like these other summary removal procedures, the person usually does not appear in an immigration court; rather, the noncitizen agrees (or “stipulates”) to deportation and gives up his or her right to a hearing. The immigration judge may enter the order of removal without seeing the person and asking him or her whether the stipulation was entered into knowingly and voluntarily. The use of stipulated removal expanded from zero in 2000 to over 30,000 in 2008.

    Of the more than 160,000 noncitizens who agreed to stipulated removal orders between 2004 and 2010, the vast majority were in immigration detention—often far from family and home—and unrepresented by counsel. The correlation between detention and stipulated removals is particularly troubling given that individuals in detention have little access to lawyers or even basic information about their legal options and because the conditions of confinement are inherently coercive. Until they go before an immigration judge, they may not know whether they have claims to immigration relief, and they may not appreciate the timeframes for making decisions in their cases. ICE agents who ask detainees to sign stipulated removal orders often leave the individuals confused about their options and feeling pressured to agree to give up their right to hearings. As a result, many stipulated removals cannot be said to be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and the procedure raises serious due process concerns.

    Conclusion

    The deportation process has been transformed drastically over the last two decades. In the past, immigration court hearings were the standard procedure. These judicial proceedings ensure a basic level of due process, help safeguard against unlawful removals, and permit noncitizens to pursue legal status in the United States, if they are eligible. Today, two-thirds of individuals deported are subject to summary removal procedures which deprive them of both the right to appear before a judge and the right to apply for status in the United States. The deportation decisions are made quickly by immigration officers, and generally there is no opportunity to consult with counsel and there is no judicial oversight. Even immigrants who are put into the immigration court process may not make it to court if they stipulate to deportation before their first hearing. The stipulation may occur quickly and without the assistance of an attorney.

    Too little attention has been paid to this dramatic shift away from fundamental principles of fairness and due process. One of the hallmarks of the U.S. justice system is the right to have a day in court before an impartial decision-maker, yet the vast majority of immigrants who are removed never see the inside of a courtroom. Understanding this transformation from immigration court process to streamlined procedures is an important step in unraveling the breadth and scope of U.S. deportation policies today.

    Published On: Wed, May 28, 2014| Download File

    This post originally Printed for The Immigration Policy Center ©. Reprinted with permission.


    About The Author

    The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) is the research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council. IPC's mission is to shape a rational conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, IPC provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy on U.S. society. IPC reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policy makers. IPC staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion-makers and the media. IPC, formed in 2003 is a non-partisan organization that neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office.


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

      Posting comments is disabled.

    Categories

    Collapse

    article_tags

    Collapse

    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
      ImmigrationDaily

      If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

      08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      ImmigrationDaily
      Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
      08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
    • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
      ImmigrationDaily
      Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
      08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
    • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.
      ImmigrationDaily

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence

      by


      On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
    • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
      ImmigrationDaily
      Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
      08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
    • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
      ImmigrationDaily
      USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
      08-14-2018, 10:51 AM
    Working...
    X