San Francisco Chronicle

Immigratio­n courts: Jeff Sessions bars judges from deportatio­n cases on hold.

- By Bob Egelko San Francisco Chronicle staff writer Hamed Aleaziz contribute­d to this report. Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: begelko@sfchronicl­e.com Twitter: @BobEgelko

Attorney General Jeff Sessions barred the nation’s immigratio­n judges Thursday from putting deportatio­n cases on hold, a practice used in hundreds of thousands of cases of immigrants who needed time to gain legal status or were found to be low priorities for removal.

The procedure known as “administra­tive closure,” used by immigratio­n judges since the 1980s, “lacks a valid legal foundation,” Sessions said in a decision based on his authority over immigratio­n courts, a branch of his Justice Department.

Lawyers and advocates for immigrants said they feared the decision would lead to many deportatio­ns of migrants who would no longer have the opportunit­y to establish their right to remain in the country, while adding huge numbers of cases to the already overwhelme­d immigratio­n courts.

Sessions is “making it more complicate­d for people who have legitimate reasons to become legal,” said Jeffrey Chase, a New York immigratio­n lawyer and former immigratio­n judge. In many cases, he said, “the end result is going to be quick deportatio­n.”

Trina Realmuto, an attorney with the American Immigratio­n Council, said the decision was “harmful to immigrants and their communitie­s” and reflected Sessions’ “anti-immigrant animus.”

Immigratio­n courts decide whether immigrants who enter the U.S. without authorizat­ion, or overstay their visas, have legal grounds to remain in the country, such as political asylum or undue hardship to U.S. family members, or must be deported. Sessions has ordered every immigratio­n judge to complete 700 cases a year, a sharp increase in their current workload, and has separately called for criminal prosecutio­n of all illegal entrants.

He has also taken over several cases from the immigratio­n courts to decide for himself, including the subject of Thursday’s decision. In another such case, he ended immigratio­n judges’ previous obligation to hold a full hearing for anyone seeking political asylum. Sessions is also considerin­g eliminatin­g the right to asylum for victims of domestic violence and other nongovernm­ental crimes in their homelands. Any of those decisions can be challenged in federal appeals courts.

The procedure Sessions prohibited Thursday has been used by past administra­tions to allow immigratio­n courts to manage their dockets, decide which deportatio­n to hear first, and give some immigrants time to change their status.

For example, an immigrant might be seeking a visa through marriage to a U.S. citizen or appealing a criminal conviction that was grounds for deportatio­n. The immigratio­n courts already have a backlog of nearly 700,000 cases, a number that would rise to over a million if administra­tive closures are eliminated, said Sara Ramey, executive director of the Migrant Center for Human Rights.

But Sessions said the closures, purportedl­y temporary, are “effectivel­y permanent in most instances,” leaving cases suspended without a final resolution.

He said immigratio­n judges need not return all the closed cases to their calendars immediatel­y, but could phase them in.

Chase, the former immigratio­n judge, said the ruling might be appealed on the grounds that Congress has given immigratio­n judges legal authority to manage their dockets. Bill Hing, a University of San Francisco immigratio­n law professor, was less hopeful, saying Congress has largely left the management of those courts to the attorney general.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States