By Vivi Paschalidou

The project titled “InteGRation: Tackling chronic challenges in the field of integration of refugees in Greece” was funded by the Oxford Policy Engagement Network (OPEN) at the University of Oxford and supported the partnership of the Border Criminologies research network with the Greek Council for Refugees. The present report is one of the outputs of the above project. In response to requests from refugee participants for information about state funded free legal aid in Greece, we created a new leaflet that provides practical information on the topic. It includes essential guidance on how to navigate the free legal aid system and a list of contact points for requesting aid at the courthouses in Athens and Thessaloniki. This leaflet has been distributed in the two major Greek cities’ Courts of Law in four languages: English, French, Arabic and Farsi. This builds on an ongoing collaboration between the two organisations. Together they have contributed to a number of key developments in the field of academic and policy inquiry into border control and immigration detention in Greece, including increasing public access to knowledge about immigration and creating a leaflet on access to rights in immigration detention. Greek Council for Refugees is a specialized Non-Governmental Organization that has been leading efforts to protect asylum and human rights in Greece since 1989. It provides free legal and social services to refugees and individuals from third countries who are entitled to international protection, with special emphasis on the most vulnerable cases, such as unaccompanied minors and victims of human trafficking. Border Criminologies is an international research network and website based at the Centre for Criminology at the University of Oxford, which showcases original research from a range of perspectives, supports advocacy work and creates practical resources to help those working in the migration field. This report examines a specific aspect of the integration of applicants and recipients of international protection in Greece: The effectiveness of their access to the Greek justice system. We undertook thirty interviews with respondents from fourteen countries. Our questions focused on the refugees’ experience with the Greek justice system, the difficulties they faced and their recommendations for its amelioration. We also interviewed members of two key stakeholders, namely the judiciary and legal professionals handling asylum and migration law.

Athens: Greek Council for Refugees, 2024. 40p.

By Jesuit Refugee Service Europe

By definition, things that occur in detention occur behind walls, and in a context where those detained have been disempowered. Scrutiny and transparency are therefore often elusive, and access to justice to which people are legally entitled may be denied altogether or made more difficult. This situation is compounded because people are often detained under immigration powers at borders, or when facing removal—in contexts of limbo, where normal justice procedures are easier to circumvent.

Against this background, this report looks into if and how detained migrants can effectively access justice in Europe today. This is a particularly relevant topic, as this work comes at a moment in which the use of detention upon arrival at external borders is likely to increase, as a result of the adoption of the EU Pact on Asylum and Migration. Because of the complexity of immigration procedures in Europe, effective access to justice cannot be properly assessed without considering if migrants—in this case detainees—have effective access to legal assistance. For this reason, a chapter of this report is dedicated to access to legal aid. We further looked into how effectively detainees can access remedies against their detention and return orders. Another chapter explores the existence and effectiveness of complaint mechanisms for detainees to address violations of rights that happen in detention. Finally, we looked into the possibility for migrants to apply for international protection while in detention.

This work is based on the experience of JRS visiting people in detention centres across Europe. JRS opposes the use of administrative detention as a practice that is inherently harmful to human dignity and has a negative impact on both physical and mental health. As long as detention is a reality, however, JRS staff and volunteers work to accompany detained migrants and advocate for the respect of their rights and for humane detention conditions.

Brussels, Belfium, JRSEurope, 2024. 69p.

Stephanie Brooks Holliday, Nicholas M. Pace, Nastassia Reed, Rosemary Li

In 2020, California took steps to address intercounty variation and shortcomings in indigent defense resources through the Indigent Defense Grant Program (IDGP), which provided 9.8 million to public defenders’ offices in small to medium-sized counties. An understanding of the implementation and outcomes of the projects initiated by grantees is critical to identifying ways to improve the effectiveness of indigent defense across the state and achieve the goals of the IDGP. Authors detail how grantees used program funds, what the funds enabled offices to accomplish, and statewide lessons learned from this program and make recommendations for similar future grant programs.

Key Findings

• The most common grant-funded hires were attorneys, law clerks or law students, and administrative assistants.

• Offices used funds for case-support services, including expert witnesses, immigration support, and interpreters.

• Grantees reported making progress toward such goals as increasing knowledge and skills of staff, improving attorney and staff workloads, and providing services related to behavioral health and well-being.

• Challenges that grantees experienced included hiring and retention difficulties, delays outside the control of the offices, and data and technology limitations.

• Grantees cited flexibility in using funds as a feature of the grant program that maximized its impact and suggested increasing the minimum funding allocation

Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2024, 73 pages

By Emily Ryo and Reed Humphrey

Removal proceedings are high-stakes adversarial proceedings in which immigration judges must decide whether to allow immigrants who allegedly have violated U.S. immigration laws to stay in the United States or to order them deported to their countries of origin. In these proceedings, the government trial attorneys prosecute noncitizens who often lack English fluency, economic resources, and familiarity with our legal system. Yet, most immigrants in removal proceedings do not have legal representation, as removal is considered to be a civil matter and courts have not recognized a right to government­appointed counsel for immigrants facing removal. Advocates, policymakers, and scholars have described this situation as an access-to-justice crisis or a representation crisis for immigrant communities. The prevailing wisdom suggests that the solution to this crisis is more lawyers or more nonlawyer practitioners, such as accredited representatives and legal technicians, who can provide affordable and quality legal services. The focus, therefore, has been on the ubiquity of "legal deserts," commonly defined as areas that are in shortage of lawyers, and on ways to increase the supply of legal service providers in the marketplace.

This Article presents an empirical study of legal representation that unsettles this prevailing wisdom by showing why an adequate supply of legal service providers is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition to address the representation crisis. Our study uses a new and original dataset that we compiled for the purposes of this study on immigration lawyers and non-detained immigrant respondents in removal proceedings. Our findings suggest that although the focus on the supply­side dimension of the representation crisis is important, it obscures other complex sets of barriers to obtaining legal representation that are distinct from the problem of legal deserts. Specifically, our empirical analyses show that whether a non-detained immigrant respondent obtains legal representation is predicted by where they reside, their primary language, and the size of their conational social networks, controlling for the availability of practicing immigration lawyers in close proximity to their places of residence and other potential confounders. In short, we argue that geography, language, and networks are destiny for immigrant respondents when it comes to obtaining legal representation. Thus, addressing the representation crisis requires looking beyond the problem of legal deserts to attend to a variety of other hurdles to obtaining legal representation that are associated with certain geographical, linguistic, and social isolation in which many immigrants live.

101 North Carolina Law Review 787-840 (2023), 54 pages