Videoconferencing in Removal Hearings: A Case Study of the Chicago Immigration Court
By The Legal Assistance Foundation Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice of Metropolitan Chicago and Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice ; Julie Dona, Geoffrey Heeren, Lisa Palumbo, Diana White, Amanda J. Grant, Mollie G. Hertel, Malcolm C. Rich
In 2002, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) moved televisions into one of the Chicago immigration courtrooms and began conducting hearings for detained immigrants in removal proceedings by videoconferencing. In Chicago’s videoconference hearings, the judges are located in the downtown court, and the detainees appear from a small detention facility in a Chicago suburb. EOIR believes that videoconferencing enhances efficiency but has not to date undertaken a study of its efficacy or fairness. Since the consequences of removal from the United States are so severe for immigrants and their families, we believed that these videoconference hearings deserved further examination. During the summer and fall of 2004, we observed 110 videoconference hearings and recorded our findings. The hearings we observed were “Master Calendar” hearings, where the Immigration Judge determines whether the removal proceeding was properly commenced, examines the charges against the immigrant, schedules future hearings, and, in some cases, orders the immigrant’s removal. Findings We found that videoconferencing is a poor substitute for in-person hearings. Among other problems, we observed deficiencies related to access to counsel, presentation of evidence, and interpretation. Latino immigrants appeared to fare especially poorly in videoconference hearings.
-
Compounding these errors, the immigrants whom we observed had little chance to speak or ask questions, were unable to communicate easily with their attorneys (if they were represented), and typically were informed of what had happened only at the conclusion of the hearing. There was little interpretation given for the benefit of non-English speakers. We were impeded from conducting our study by a general lack of transparency in the removal process for detained immigrants. There was no public access to the remote courtroom, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) refused to allow us to interview immigrants who had gone through videoconference hearings. There is virtually no regulation or written policy, moreover, governing videoconferencing in the immigration court
Washington, DC: Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, 2005. 106p.