The Standard Journal

Immigratio­n courts face many problems

- An unidentifi­ed Guatemalan woman stands inside a dormitory in the Artesia Family Residentia­l Center, a federal detention facility for undocument­ed immigrant mothers and children in Artesia, N.M.

ATLANTA — Everyone was in place for the hearing in Atlanta immigratio­n court: the Guinean man hoping to stay in the U.S., his attorney, a prosecutor, a translator and the judge. But because of some missing paperwork, it was all for nothing.

When the government attorney said he hadn’t received the case file, Judge J. Dan Pelletier reschedule­d the proceeding. Everybody would have to come back another day.

The sudden delay was just one example of the inefficien­cy witnessed by an Associated Press writer who observed hearings over two days in one of the nation’s busiest immigratio­n courts. And that case is one of more than half a million weighing down court dockets across the country as President Donald Trump steps up enforcemen­t of immigratio­n laws.

Even before Trump became president, the nation’s immigratio­n courts were burdened with a record number of pending cases, a shortage of judges and frequent bureaucrat­ic breakdowns. Cases involving immigrants not in custody commonly take two years to resolve and sometimes as many as five.

The backlog and insufficie­nt resources are problems stretching back at least a decade, said San Francisco Immigratio­n Judge Dana Marks, speaking as the president of the National Associatio­n of Immigratio­n Judges.

“It would be a shame if the mistakes of the past continue to be repeated,” Marks said, citing previous attempts to ramp up enforcemen­t without providing adequate resources to the courts.

Trump’s recent executive orders and subsequent memos from Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly have focused on hiring more enforcemen­t agents to find and detain people in the country illegally, but the administra­tion has been largely silent on beefing up immigratio­n courts.

The system includes 58 courts in 27 states. Their job is to decide whether noncitizen­s charged with violating immigratio­n laws should be allowed to stay in the U.S. Immigratio­n judges work for the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigratio­n Review, not the judicial branch.

People appearing in immigratio­n court are generally considered to have the right to an attorney, but the court isn’t required to provide one for free as in criminal cases. Rulings can be appealed to the Board of Immigratio­n Appeals, and board decisions can be appealed to a federal appeals court.

Of 374 authorized immigratio­n judge positions, 301 are filled. Fif- ty more candidates are in various stages of the hiring process, which typically takes about a year, said Kathryn Mattingly, a spokeswoma­n for the Executive Office for Immigratio­n Review.

The office “constantly evaluates the need to shift its resources,” Mattingly said, and is reviewing ways to maximize its efforts on “priority cases.”

In all, more than 534,000 cases were pending before immigratio­n courts nationwide in February, according to a recent memo from Kelly.

Advocates worry the Trump administra­tion will increase the use of procedures that allow authoritie­s to deport people without using the court system at all.

“Instead of actually trying to make the courts better, they just want to use them less, even though that obviously is deeply problemati­c from a due- process standpoint,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants’ Rights Project.

The increased use of detention could also lead immigrants with valid claims for staying in the U.S. to accept deportatio­n, just to avoid extended periods of time in detention, Jadwat said.

Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigratio­n Reform, which pushes for strict immigratio­n policies, said the greater threat of detention could deter people from coming to the U.S. or encourage some who are here to leave.

The Georgia Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday from a Floyd County man sentenced to life without parole for a 2013 murder that his attorney was ineffectiv­e at his trial.

Jamarrcus Rashad Sullivan was sentenced to life without parole plus 45 years for the June 1, 2013, fatal shooting of 39-year-old Kevin Daniel.

Sullivan along with Antonio Devion Jones and Christophe­r Rayshun Smith plotted and then robbed Kevin Daniel at his Wheeler Street home.

Once inside the home a struggle broke out and Daniel was shot as the three men fled. He died later from his wounds.

Sullivan argues his trial attorney violated his constituti­onal rights by not objecting to evidence that made it seem as if he planned to flee after the crime as well as showing

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States