By Bryan L. Sykes, Meghan Ballard, Andrea Giuffre, Rebecca Goodsell, Daniela Kaiser, Vicente Celestino Mata, Justin Sola

Research on punishment and inequality finds that people with criminal records routinely avoid systems of surveillance. Yet scholarship on monetary sanctions shows that many people experiencing poverty with criminal legal system debt are also involved with the state in other domains of social life. How can these literatures be resolved? In this article, we posit that past research can be reconciled through a focus on financial double-dealing—disparate and contradictory economic entanglements that redistribute welfare resources from individuals to the criminal legal system and its institutional affiliates. Drawing on nationally representative survey data, as well as unique data collected on people with monetary sanctions in seven states, we find that individuals and families receiving cash and noncash public assistance are significantly more likely to owe monetary sanctions and are less likely to pay them. We discuss the implications of multiple-system involvement for ongoing surveillance.

RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences January 2022, 8 (1) 148-178

By Amairini Sanchez, Michele Cadigan, Dayo Abels-Sullivan, Bryan L. Sykes

 Research on crimmigration—the intersection where criminal and immigration law meet—shows that immigrants are increasingly punished and deported as a consequence of a criminal conviction. We investigate how immigration status shapes the imposition of monetary sanctions. By drawing on interview and court observational data from four states, we demonstrate that the legal opaqueness at the intersection of the crimmigration system often results in crimmigration sanctions—enhanced financial and nonfinancial penalties that are the result of an undocumented immigrant’s liminal legality. Findings show that immigrants are financially exploited through gaps in criminal and immigration law that allow for crimmigration sanctions in the form of bail predation and the exchange of higher financial penalties for reduced or no jail time, lessening an undocumented immigrant’s risk of deportation. The implications of these practices for due process are discussed in detail 

: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences January 2022, 8 (2) 76-97;

By The Criminal Justice Alliance

  This study seeks to expand on the limited evidence published to date on the experiences of Black, Asian and minority ethnic women prisoners3 (Buncy and Ahmed, 2014; Cox and Sacks-Jones, 2017; Prison Reform Trust, 2017). It aims to better understand and amplify the diverse experiences of Black, Asian and minority ethnic prisoners, including Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people, as well as foreign nationals, across the women’s prison estate in England. This report recognises that the survey respondents are not a homogenous group. They encompass various identities and ethnicities, resulting in a range of lived experiences, both between and within groups. The discrimination experienced by Black, Asian and minority ethnic prisoners held in women’s establishments is multi-layered, with intersectional identities: ethnicity, race, religion, social class, sexual orientation, nationality and gender. Intersectionality recognises that, as individuals are made up of several identities, they may experience multiple interwoven prejudices. For example, women may experience gendered discrimination, and women from minoritised communities could simultaneously face additional forms of discrimination. The findings in this report were gathered by interviewing and surveying individuals within the project’s scope. It presents their perception of (un)fair treatment and the extent to which the prison meets their cultural needs. It provides further detail on incidents of discrimination and the establishment’s response. It addresses the language barriers faced by those whose first language is not English. It also provides examples of positive practice and suggestions for future activities that raise awareness of cultural practices and celebrate religious traditions.  

London: The Criminal Justice Alliance, 2022. 84p.

By  Amal Ali and Hannah Pittaway  

  This ground-breaking project centres on the lived experiences of Black, Asian and minority ethnic women in prison, and comes at a time when there is increased attention on race and gender inequality in the criminal justice system, but the combination of these issues rarely receives any government attention. We received over 300 survey responses from women in prison, prison staff and IMBs, improving our understanding of the double disadvantage that women from minority ethnic backgrounds face. We are very grateful to the women with lived experience who co-designed the survey and all those in custody for their honesty and openness when completing it. Their accounts of direct and indirect racism and poor treatment are shocking and distressing. Even more upsetting is their sense of fatalism - they see it as part of their everyday lives. The women lack confidence in the complaints system, do not trust that they will be treated fairly and are often unaware of how the IMB can help. The impact of the pandemic has made this worse. There is an urgent need to address these issues nationally and locally. IMBs play an important role given their day-to-day presence in prisons. Community scrutiny is a vital tool to hold criminal justice agencies to account. The CJA has focused on improving community scrutiny for several years looking at police powers, police custody and now prison custody. We consistently see the same themes: the need for better and more consistent data collection and analysis, more effective equalities training and support, and for community volunteers to be more representative of the populations in the criminal justice system. The recommendations in these reports map out sensible steps Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and IMBs can take to make positive change and I hope to see them being implemented with haste.    

London: Criminal Justice Alliance, 2022. 38p.

By Aidan Mcquade, Juliana Rexha and Anila Trimi  

  This study is based upon the review of 45 cases of potential victims of child trafficking - 31 girls and 14 boys. The data was collected by Child Protection Workers (CPWs) during the period 2016- 2019. The selected period coincides with the Organization of Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Presence in Albania work to support Albanian institutions to address child trafficking through a child protection framework. Of the 45 cases examined, 39 had been identified by authorities as potential victims of child trafficking. These cases suggest that trafficking for sexual exploitation, particularly through work in Albania’s nightclubs and entertainment industry, is a principal trafficking risk for girls, and trafficking for forced begging and criminal activity is a principal trafficking risk for boys. While third parties are often involved in this trafficking, there are some instances identified where trafficking is being facilitated or tolerated by the child’s parents. The majority of the cases examined in this study – 41 out of 45 – had no international aspect to them. Rather they represented risks of child trafficking or exploitation wholly within the borders of Albania. This indicates the need for law reform in Albania to recognise trafficking as a domestic as well as an international phenomenon. The study also finds significant evidence of coordination of state actors responsible for child protection in initial response to the identified cases: a multi-stakeholder approach on case management was undertaken in 41 out of 45 cases. However, the study also found significant problems regarding the case management. For example, of the 39 cases identified as potential cases of child trafficking only one was formally and conclusively identified as child trafficking. Furthermore, in 11 cases the exploitation continued even after the identification of the child as a potential victim of trafficking. Of these 11 cases, eight were cases of girls being sexually exploited, hence left in the hands of their traffickers in spite of the identified risks. Such egregious failures may be a result of systemic gender bias, a matter that requires further research and, if necessary, urgent solution. In other words this study found a lack of explicit decision making regarding trafficking identification, lack of follow up of criminal investigations, and worrying lapses in provision of sufficiently robust child protection measures. Furthermore, this study found a poor standard of record keeping and reporting. Hence, these findings indicate that there is still a considerable need for the strengthening of child protection systems in Albania, particularly in co-ordination and follow-up on child trafficking cases.

Vienna, Austria: OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Presence in Albania, 2020. 40p.

By The 

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE),  Office of the Special Representative and Co-ordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings

This paper explores the intersections between human trafficking and terrorism by analysing activities of terrorist groups through the lens of trafficking in human beings. Through a critical analysis of legal and policy regimes, the paper provides a comparative study of two crimes – human trafficking and terrorism – based on a series of illustrative examples collected from throughout the OSCE region. The outcome is a set of targeted recommendations to challenge the trafficking practices of terrorist groups by leveraging existing preventative and protective mechanisms in the anti-trafficking field. The intent of these recommendations is to support participating States in preventing the crime of trafficking by terrorist groups, hold the perpetrators fully accountable and protect victims.

Vienna, Austria:  OSCE, 2021. 72p.

By The 

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE),  Office of the Special Representative and Co-ordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings

Identifying an adult or child as a victim of trafficking is the first stage of protecting them. In many countries, being identified as a trafficking victim is the gateway to services and support specific to trafficking victims, rather than services and support specific to, for example, refugees or children. The primary purpose of identification is not to gather evidence from potential witnesses or victims of crime, nor to collect data about the number of people who have been trafficked. It is to trigger a State’s obligation to provide protection, including all forms of assistance.
This assistance should not be conditional on victims’ co-operation with the criminal justice system. It should instead offer them a path toward recovery, rehabilitation and restoration of their rights. Indeed, such assistance increases the likelihood of victims regaining their agency and participating in all aspects of society, including criminal proceedings, with the goal of bringing their traffickers to justice.

Currently, in the majority of OSCE participating States, individuals can only be formally identified as victims of trafficking in human beings within the criminal justice system, usually by law enforcement. A recent OSCE report1 indicates that in approximately half of the OSCE participating States (29), only officials associated with law enforcement can designate a person as a trafficking victim. Moreover, in eight participating States only law enforcement can refer them to support services.

Vienna, Austria: OSCE, 2023. 40p,.

By The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE),  Office of the Special Representative and Co-ordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings

The report provides an analysis of how technology-facilitated trafficking in human beings has been approached from the perspective of policy and legislation across the OSCE participating States. While looking primarily at the accelerating shift toward government-led responses, the report also examines the policies and practices adopted by the private sector and civil society organizations. In addition, the report offers recommendations for policy and legislative responses by OSCE participating States to the misuse of technology to exploit victims.

Vienna, Austria: OSCE, 2022. 69p.

By Iris Chang

NY. Penguin. 1997. 314p.

In December 1937, one of the most horrific atrocities in the long annals of wartime barbarity occurred. The Japanese army swept into the ancient city of Nanking (what was then the capital of China), and within weeks, more than 300,000 Chinese civilians and soldiers were systematically raped, tortured, and murdered. In this seminal work, Iris Chang, whose own grandparents barely escaped the massacre, tells this history from three perspectives: that of the Japanese soldiers, that of the Chinese, and that of a group of Westerners who refused to abandon the city and created a safety zone, which saved almost 300,000 Chinese.

Drawing on extensive interviews with survivors and documents brought to light for the first time, Iris Chang's classic book is the definitive history of this horrifying episode.

By Gemma Dipoppa,  Guy Grossman and Stephanie Zonszein

Covid-19 caused a significant health and economic crisis, a condition identified as conducive to stigmatization and hateful behavior against minority groups. It is however unclear whether the threat of infection triggers violence in addition to stigmatization, and whether a violent reaction can happen at the onset of an unexpected economic shock before social hierarchies can be disrupted. Using a novel database of hate crimes across Italy, we show that (i) hate crimes against Asians increased substantially at the pandemic onset, and that (ii) the increase was concentrated in cities with higher expected unemployment, but not higher mortality. We then examine individual, local and national mobilization as mechanisms. We find that (iii) local far-right institutions motivate hate crimes, while we find no support for the role of individual prejudice and national discourse. Our study identifies new conditions triggering hateful behavior, advancing our understanding of factors hindering migrant integration

ESOC Working Paper Series: 2021. 70p.

 By Vasanthi Venkatesh  

Arizona has been in the news for the past few years not only for its vituperative, anti-immigrant policies, but also for the impressive immigrant rights movement that continues to spawn new coalitions and new activities. The large numbers of cases that were and continue to be litigated and the innovative use of law to mobilize present a paradox since it is the law that constructs the “illegality” of undocumented immigrants, providing them very limited recourse to rights claims. This paper analyzes the opportunities in existing legal doctrine for claiming rights for the undocumented. I argue that in the almost categorical acceptance of the plenary power of the Congress in immigration and the absence of a clear-cut articulation of rights for undocumented immigrants, immigrant rights advocates are faced with procedural and substantive obstacles to make legal claims. The legal opportunities that exist currently offer partial and ineffective solutions at best. I then explore what compelled legal mobilization strategies despite the lack of entitlements under immigration law and how the costs of legal strategies are mitigated by other advantages that legal mobilization provides. I suggest that activists invoked the law in various ways, not necessarily enamored by rights discourses or by an unbridled expectation in law as a means to achieve justice. The law, even with its limitations and biases, still provided avenues to curb state power and it also functioned as a symbolic, discursive, and mobilizing resource. I show that undocumented immigrants rely on legal action and rights discourse not only because of the expected diffusional effects of movements such as the civil rights and gay  rights movement but also as acts of resistance and as assertions of quasi-citizenship

Harvard Latino Law Review, Vol. 19, pp.165-201 (2016). 38p.

By Gary J. Hale and Jie Ma

U.S. immigration policy remains murky in substance as well as legislatively incomplete. Polarization of the issue by American politicians and legislators has resulted in both punitive and permissive policy pronouncements over the last four U.S. presidential administrations, most of which have done little to deter migrants from crossing through Mexico into the U.S. in search of a better life.

From a policy perspective, the flow of migrants through Mexico to the United States is seemingly unstoppable — with many believing that U.S. government efforts to curtail this activity have failed. If the intent of previous and existing federal immigration laws and reforms was to conduct immigration processing in an orderly manner, the U.S. government has not succeeded. The current situation on the U.S.-Mexico border demonstrates that walls, fences, barricades, bridges, patrols, technology, and laws do not deter illegal entries. Media coverage of the “border crisis” — including reports of individual crossings and the so-called “caravans” moving through Mexico — has added to the perception that there is no end in sight to the swell of migrants at the southern border.

This research paper reviews some of the implications of at least 30 migrant caravan iterations that were detected traversing Mexico en route to the U.S. from 2017 to 2022. The migrant caravan phenomenon is viewed from a broad perspective and distilled down to the individual iterations to assess commonalities between caravan waves and to determine which “push” and “pull” factors were in place when the caravans were formed and mobilized. The individual caravan iterations are also compared against permissive and punitive U.S. and Mexican immigration policies at the time to assess any discernable cause and effect. Our analysis provides evidence that punitive policies may negatively affect the creation and movement of caravans, while permissive immigration policies may create an impetus for migrant movements. Recommendations for future action are included.

Houston, TX: Baker Institute for Public Policy, 2023. 24p.

By Mizue Aizeki, Ghita Schwarz, Jane Shim, and Samah Sisay

Cruel by Design: Voices of Resistance from Immigration Detention, a report by the Immigrant Defense Project and the Center for Constitutional Rights, shows how the harms associated with ICE detention practices are embedded in the structures of the immigration control regime rather than a manifestation of a broken system. In doing so, it offers a summary of U.S. detention laws to illustrate how the system is designed to make it as easy as possible for the federal government to exclude and deport people. It also shows how the detention system deploys multiple tactics to undermine the ability of individuals to fight deportation. In addition, the report highlights the stories of people who’ve been held in ICE detention, and their resistance and resilience in the face of a draconian system. Piecemeal reforms alone will not be sufficient for remedying the cruelty of this system. What is ultimately required is far-reaching transformation, one aimed at ending detention as a tool of the U.S. regime of exclusion.

New York: Immigrant Defense Project and Center for Constitutional Rights, 2022.  49p.

By Adam G. Lichtenheld,

Libya is a key destination and transit point for people on the move. Since 2017 – when the European Union (EU) endorsed a deal between Italy and Libya to crack down on irregular migration from Africa to Europe along the Central Migration Route – Libyan authorities and local armed groups have detained thousands of refugees, migrants, and asylum-seekers in the country.

An increasing number of reports from human rights organizations have revealed that detainees face massive overcrowding, dire sanitary conditions, and rampant human rights abuses. While there has been significant discussion of the potentially harmful effects of the current detention system in Libya, little is known about arrest and detention patterns and which refugee and migrant profiles are more vulnerable to being detained.
This report examines the social, economic, and demographic determinants of detention of refugees and migrants in Libya. Drawing on surveys of 5,144 refugees, migrants, and asylum-seekers, it compares the profiles and characteristics of those who reported being detained and those who did not in order to identify what factors make people on the move more likely to end up in detention. While the report focuses on the Libyan context, its findings have implications for understanding the drivers, dynamics, and consequences of migrant detention elsewhere. This is important given the growing trend among EU and other Western countries of outsourcing asylum and migration control to transit states in Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Latin America.

Mixed Migration Centre, 2019. 36p.

By Sabine de Graaf

This literature review summarises research that has been conducted on the impact of family separation on a child, demonstrating how separation from a parent can cause harm to a child. The purpose of the reviews is to provide an indepth overview of recent academic insights and discussions on the impact of ‘family separation’ from a number of different perspectives and contexts and focusses on academic literature from various disciplines published in the past 10 years. [1] The first part of the review considers the impact of family separation in a general context of imprisonment, looking at the impact of parental incarcerations, as well as the specifics of incarceration of either the mother or the father on a child. The second part of the review demonstrates that similar negative impacts on children are seen in the context of family separation as a result of deportation. [1] The main question considered to define the literature review was: What is the impact of family separation on the well-being of children? Literature was sought via Google Scholar, narrowing the search from a period covering 2010-2020. The focus is on studies undertaken in the UK, supplemented by studies done in the US. The key words for the search that were used in a variety of combinations were: family separation, parental incarceration, parental imprisonment, paternal imprisonment, maternal imprisonment. Bibliographies of relevant literature results were cross-referenced to find further relevant studies and discover emerging themes and debates such as the role of family factors in intergenerational transmission of offending (discussed in 1.3).  

London: Bail for Immigration Detainee, 2020. 21p.

By Rudy Schulkind

The introduction of automatic deportation for so called ‘foreign criminals’ convicted and sentenced to 12 months or more under the UK Borders Act 2007 (unless certain exceptions apply including the right to a private and family life), followed by further provisions in 20121 and 20142 , has led to an increasingly strident regime that makes it mandatory to separate a child from a parent. That is, so long as any harm that is caused to the child, parent or partner is not ‘excessive’. In the case of children, these provisions are relied upon by the Home Office and the courts to override the government’s statutory duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of children. Through our legal casework BID has witnessed first-hand the devastating impact this regime is having on families and communities. We have undertaken this research so that we can shine a light on this cruel and inhuman policy. Our research is primarily based on interviews with fathers facing deportation from the UK. It is the words of those directly affected that form the substance of the report. The testimonies of the fathers we spoke to are powerful and often heart-breaking, and paint a picture of an entirely broken system that cannot be in the public interest. Section 1 of the report examines the sprawling impact of the deportation system, from the individuals punished permanently and given no second chance because they don’t have a British passport, to the children and families treated as collateral damage. Families were placed in extreme practical, financial and emotional hardship by extended periods of uncertainty under the constant threat that family life will be brought to a permanent end. Not only were the fathers we interviewed prevented from working, they faced repeated periods of detention that were traumatic for the entire family and placed an even greater practical burden on the mother. A particular focus of this section is the devastating impact deportation has on children. In the interviews we carried out, fathers facing deportation reported their children developing anxiety; crying constantly; unable to let their dad out of their sight; withdrawing from everything; loss of appetite; difficulty sleeping; having nightmares; and in one particularly serious case self-harm and attempted suicide. In addition to these testimonies we present evidence of recent academic insights about enforced parental separation in a number of different contexts. Somewhat unsurprisingly the evidence  overwhelmingly finds that being forcibly and permanently separated from a parent generally has severe consequences for a child’s wellbeing and long-term development. Section 2 of the report concerns access to justice. The removal of legal aid and successive legislative changes have had a particularly detrimental effect on people seeking to appeal deportation. Interviewees explained the myriad interlocking barriers to justice they had been forced to confront. These include the complexity of immigration law and the prohibitive cost of private representation, as well as practical obstacles for those deprived of their liberty. The frequent and excessive use of detention, itself an injustice, leads to additional practical barriers to challenging deportation, particularly where this takes place in a prison. The first-hand evidence from our interviews reflect a dysfunctional system designed to make it practically impossible to even access a fair hearing. Alongside this we also present evidence from our own Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) project. We have found the ECF scheme to be unnecessarily burdensome and entirely inaccessible to unrepresented individuals. 

London: Bail for Immigration Detainees, 2021. 40p.

By David Neal

In July 2021, I announced my intention to conduct ‘An inspection of the Satellite Tracking Service Programme’ (STSP). I agreed with the Home Office to delay my inspection given the electronic monitoring service had yet to commence, and to avoid overlap with STSP project assurance reports. The purpose of tagging is to reduce absconding and increase the number of foreign national offenders (FNOs) removed, the latter being a key Home Secretary priority. It also enables, in certain circumstances, the Home Office to see where an FNO has been. The service is still in the first 6 months of rollout and it cannot yet demonstrate it is achieving these aims. My inspection team found staff in the Home Office’s Electronic Monitoring (EM) Hub (the Hub) to be hard-working, dedicated and ready to ‘muck in’ to get things done. They reported feeling well supported by managers, and inspectors noted a positive workplace culture. However, their efforts have been hampered by protracted government recruitment processes, a lack of training and an underestimation of the volume of legal challenges. Staff shortages meant that the Hub has had to prioritise certain areas of work to the detriment of others, leading to delays, for example, in the 3-monthly reviews of those who are on a tag and a lack of use of formal sanctions for breaches, including prosecutions. The latter point leads to multiple warning letters being sent out to individuals who have breached the conditions of their tag, which threatens to undermine the effectiveness of the whole programme. This requires urgent senior management intervention. I am pleased that there appears to be some recent progress on recruitment and that new staff were due to start shortly after the onsite phase of the inspection concluded. However, the Hub needs to have a clear plan for what can be achieved with its current level of resources and as the Home Office expands its use of EM, including the delayed introduction of non-fitted devices, a key part of its strategy. This expansion should be supported by a comprehensive training package for both existing and new staff alongside the implementation of quality assurance processes and more effective performance management of the supplier, to help drive continuous improvement.  

London: Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, 2022.  43p.

By Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) , Medical Justice and the Public Law Project

This report explores the use of GPS Electronic Monitoring (EM), which is more colloquially referred to as ‘GPS tagging’, as one of the conditions of an individual being released from immigration detention on bail. Anyone residing in the UK and who is subject to either deportation proceedings or a Deportation Order may be tagged as part of their immigration bail conditions [1]. Two recent changes introduced by the Home Office have greatly increased both the number of people monitored and the intrusiveness of the monitoring technology. First, in November 2020 the Home Office transitioned from radio frequency electronic monitoring (EM) to a far more intrusive system of Global Positioning System (GPS) electronic monitoring for people on immigration bail [2], thereby monitoring the wearer’s location at all times. Second, since 31 August 2021 the home secretary has a duty to electronically monitor those on immigration bail who reside in England and Wales and who could be detained because they are subject to deportation proceedings or a Deportation Order (‘the duty’)[3]. From 31 August 2022, the duty has also applied to those residing in Scotland or Northern Ireland, although it is not expected to become available in Northern Ireland until November 2022[4]. As a result of these two changes, electronic monitoring is now a mandatory condition for many people on immigration bail in the UK, and the overwhelming majority of those subject to it will be fitted with a GPS tag [5]. This research is based on a review of medical-legal assessments written by clinicians concerning the impact of electronic monitoring, conducted by Medical Justice, and interviews with 19 of Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID)’s former clients who have been fitted with a GPS tag as part of their immigration bail conditions. Through these two streams of research, this report seeks to provide a snapshot of the everyday experiences of wearing a GPS tag whilst on immigration bail.   

London: Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) and Medical Justice, 2022. 49p.

By Rudy Schulkind and Idel Hanley

New research published today by Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) and Medical Justice documents the devastating impact upon immigration detainees in prisons of conditions amounting to indefinite solitary confinement. People held for immigration reasons (including torture survivors and those with serious vulnerabilities) are locked in their cells for over 22 hours a day, most often 23.5, with people sometimes being held in their cells for days at a time and unable to take a shower. Some are self-harming, attempting suicide and unable to sleep or eat. They report existing in a state of endless despair. Physical symptoms include involuntary shaking, memory loss and physical pain. As one man told us:

“I didn’t enter prison with mental health problems but I’m not the same person I was. My mind is not the same. I’m not sure if what has happened to be can be repaired.”

Another said: “It just feels illegal because of what it’s doing to my mind and body. If this isn’t breaching my rights, then what will? It’s as though I’ve fallen into a crack that the Home Office opened and I can’t get out.”

The research released today is based on interviews with 5 immigration detainees and on medico-legal reports produced by doctors, as well as reviews of case files that argue for the release of people held in prolonged confinement – either solitarily or with a cell-mate. 

Key findings: Five disturbing statements describe people being pushed to the limit of what a human being can be expected to endure. Two people described the experience as torture. Their statements are distressing to read but they have been included in this report.  The medico-legal reports illustrate severe impact on health including the exacerbation of pre-existing mental health conditions and the onset of new conditions. The severe harm caused is reflected in the literature on the impact of solitary confinement on health. It can cause long-term and even irreversible harm and may increase the risk of suicide. Prolonged solitary confinement is prohibited by the United Nations and can amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, according to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. The report also finds that in individual cases and in official correspondence the Home Office has failed to engage with the issue of prolonged solitary confinement in prisons.  It appears that severely restrictive prison conditions are not being considered when assessing the proportionality of immigration detention.   

London: Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) and Medical Justice, 2021. 33p.

By Rebecca Gambler; et al.

Each year, EOIR issues decisions for hundreds of thousands of cases of foreign nationals charged as removable under U.S. immigration law. EOIR is facing a significant and growing backlog of cases pending before the immigration courts. At the start of fiscal year 2023, EOIR’s backlog was about 1.8 million pending cases—more than triple the number of pending cases at the start of fiscal year 2017. In 2017, GAO reported on EOIR’s management practices, including how it manages and oversees workforce planning and immigration judge hiring. GAO was asked to review various EOIR management functions, including actions taken since GAO’s 2017 report. This report assesses, among other things, EOIR’s (1) workforce planning practices; (2) judge performance appraisal program; and (3) policies and procedures for reporting quality data to the public. GAO analyzed EOIR staffing data from fiscal years 2017 through 2022—the most current data available. GAO reviewed EOIR documentation and interviewed officials from headquarters and four immigration courts selected to include different caseloads, among other factors. What GAO Recommends GAO is making six recommendations to improve, among other things, EOIR’s workforce planning, judge performance appraisal program management, and data quality practices. EOIR identified ongoing and planned steps to address these recommendations.   

Washington, DC: GAO, 2023. 61p.