The Mercury News

Don’t do away with detainees’ access to legal help

- By Evangeline Abriel Evangeline Abriel is a clinical professor of law at Santa Clara University School of Law, where she teaches the Immigratio­n Appellate Practice Clinic.

On April 10, the Executive Office for Immigratio­n Review announced the “temporary halt” of its Legal Orientatio­n Program, which provides many immigratio­n detainees with the only help they will receive concerning removal proceeding­s and the relief that might be available to them. Ending the program would be a grave mistake, affecting the due process rights of hundreds of thousands of detainees.

People in removal proceeding­s are entitled to counsel, but at no expense to the government. This means that individual­s who are not lucky enough to obtain pro bono counsel or have funds to pay private counsel must go alone through removal proceeding­s, in a field regularly described as the most complex in American law. And the cases are serious. Many involve children. Many involve individual­s who have lived here for many years and developed deep roots, or who fear persecutio­n or death if forced to return to their countries. Immigratio­n Judge Dana Marks Keener describes removal proceeding­s as “death penalty cases in a traffic court setting.”

The figures are startling. Less than 30 percent of people in removal proceeding­s secure counsel. But among persons in ICE detention — over 30,000 on any given day — only 14 percent have counsel. The outcomes are also startlingl­y disparate, even allowing for difference­s in individual cases. Overall, unrepresen­ted detained persons are twice as likely as represente­d ones to be deported.

The Legal Orientatio­n Program, while no substitute for individual representa­tion, provides vital assistance to immigratio­n detainees isolated from other sources of informatio­n. Under the program, EOIR provides about $8 million a year to the nonprofit Vera Institute for Justice. In turn, Vera funds nonprofit organizati­ons that go into immigratio­n detention centers to educate individual­s about the immigratio­n court process and their rights and remedies in it. The program operates at 38 detention facilities across the country. Advocates call it a “legal lifeline” for detained immigrants.

For California, the Executive Office for Immigratio­n Review’s decision would halt LOP programs at the privately run Otay Mesa and Adelanto detention facilities in Southern California. Together, they detain some 3,500 people at a time, with Otay Mesa planning to double its capacity. California’s recent funding for immigratio­n legal services provides hope that some detained individual­s will obtain representa­tion. However, following California legislatio­n curtailing immigratio­n detention in the state, we can also expect increased transfer of California residents to detention outside California and removal without benefit of counsel or the LOP.

According to The Washington Post, EOIR will examine the LOP’s cost-effectiven­ess, noting that immigratio­n judges must already inform respondent­s about their rights. Advocates dispute the adequacy of such warnings. Moreover, alarmingly, halting the program coincides with another developmen­t — imposing production quotas on immigratio­n judges, to reduce the immigratio­n court backlog of over 650,000 cases.

The two events seem mutually incompatib­le. Judges pressed to process cases quickly will have less time to inform pro se respondent­s about their rights and remedies. At the same time, the LOP has actually shortened removal proceeding­s. According to the EOIR’s website, “The LOP has had positive effects on the immigratio­n court process: detained individual­s make wiser, more informed, decisions and are more likely to obtain representa­tion; nonprofit organizati­ons reach a wider audience of people with minimal resources; and cases are more likely to be completed faster, resulting in fewer court hearings and less time spent in detention.”

In 2003, the EOIR showed commitment to fairness, responding to the lack of representa­tion in removal proceeding­s by funding the LOP. Ending that program signals that the EOIR is no longer concerned about fairness. It is also an ineffectiv­e way to shorten removal proceeding­s. And it cannot be seen in isolation. The combinatio­n of increased immigratio­n detention, immigratio­n judge quotas and ending the LOP program turns removal proceeding­s into a deportatio­n mill. Restoring the Legal Orientatio­n Program would restore a measure of fairness.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States