Nation of Immigrators - A public policy blog on America’s dysfunctional immigration system

"U.S. immigration law is like stratified rock, revealing layer on layer of Congressional accretions laid down over many years, with the superstructure upended in tectonic shifts triggered by the baffling and contradictory interpretations of multiple agencies and courts." 

Nothing of substance has changed since I offered that post last August, save for a groundbreaking election that reversed years of Republican opposition and Democratic indifference, leading to a bipartisan effort to reform the immigration laws comprehensively. 

While federal legislators and the Obama Administration are putting in place new scaffolding for immigration reform, the foundation remains broken and shaky. A path to citizenship, enhanced border security, disincentives to illegal entry and employment, and adequate future flows of legal workers are all well and good.  But the superstructure of the new immigration system will topple and the temptation to enter illegally or overstay will return if the basic approach to justice, fairness and due process is not dramatically transformed.

Reforms of the immigration justice system could conceivably be narrow or wide-ranging.  A necessary, if partial, solution -- just a first step -- would reform the appellate process within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).   This agency countenances a woefully unjust appellate body, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), that reviews decisions of USCIS field offices and regional service centers denying requests for immigration benefits submitted by American and foreign citizens and U.S. employers.

As I've noted recently, the AAO “is staffed by too many non-lawyers, issuing too many legally dubious and inordinately delayed decisions, without rules of court, from within the same agency (USCIS) that issued the initial decision, while denying many parties with legal interests in the outcome an opportunity to be heard or affording a means to preserve the status quo (e.g., uninterrupted employment authorization) when an appeal remains pending.” The AAO, however, is only part of the problem; reforms to the system of administrative justice at USCIS must be holistic and comprehensive. 

Administrative reform (which Congress should enact into law rather than trust the agency to promulgate) must begin with a change to the USCIS rules which now limit the types of parties (a) who are permitted to appear before the agency and (b) the even smaller population of persons and organizations allowed to appeal an adverse decision. Moreover, the initial decision by a USCIS adjudicator must include an articulation of the evidence submitted and a detailed ruling on each of the legal issues raised.

In all, I offer "25 Proposed Reforms to the Administrative Appellate Process within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services," and welcome reader commentary.  These suggestions, if adopted, would improve the system of immigration justice, but they only nip at solutions. 

Real justice reforms in the immigration arena would produce efficiencies, cost savings, improved access to justice, and beneficial changes to the way binding legal precedents are decided.  As detailed at length in a February 27, 2013 New York Law Journal article, "Appealing Alternatives: Immigration Justice System Re-Imagined," by Ted J. Chiappari and me, Congress should establish a single Federal Immigration Court with full powers under Article I of the Constitution to hear appeals of all immigration-related administrative decisions rendered by the several agencies and departments in Washington. 

Such reforms would also upgrade the professionalism and commitment to zealous advocacy of the immigration bar (whether in private practice or government service), while making the law more understandable and accessible to the public and the growing numbers of lawyers whose substantive expertise is other than immigration but who laudably engage in providing pro bono immigration legal services to individuals and non-profits. 

Modeled after the Federal Bankruptcy Court, the proposed Federal Immigration Court would allow judges to develop the necessary expertise in all areas of immigration law.  It would also preclude the announcement by the federal agencies and departments of policy by administrative ruling rather than by the promulgation of proposed rules under the Administrative Procedure Act, which offers the public prior notice and the opportunity to comment before any immigration regulation would be made final.

So let's cut to the chase.  Here is the essential kernel of thought to digest from the introduction and conclusion of the cited New York Law Journal article:

If, as author Robert Sherrill maintained in his 1970 book, Military Justice is to Justice as Military Music is to Music, then immigration justice in 21st Century America is as melodious as an atonal, off-pitch cacophony.  The forms and forums for truth-seeking and dispute resolution under the U.S. immigration system are wide-ranging, largely counter-intuitive and often too dysfunctional to mete out true justice. . . .

[I]mmigration justice today is unmelodious and painful to sit through.  With a new Immigration Court as orchestral director, however, the several administrative agencies and immigration stakeholders sitting in musicians’ chairs could render a tour de force ensemble production, a command performance to delight Lady Justice and all citizens, foreign and domestic alike, who care deeply for her continued health and well-being.

The portents were plentiful, reaching back 30 years. Yet none but a clairvoyant could have predicted the aftermath on June 15, 1982 when the Supreme Court in Plyler v. Doe provided undocumented children with a guarantee of education through high school. Three decades to the day, a mixed-race president (whose Kenyan father was hounded out of the U.S. as a student by the immigration authorities for dating a white woman) would provide paperless kids with a tenuous legal status and the right to work.

It took a long time coming but the crystal ball became as vivid as a 3D film on an IMAX screen:

• Undaunted by ten years of Congressional failure to enact legislation, DREAMers became activists, forming United We Dream and countless other grass roots initiatives. 
• Over 90 law professors, scholarly colleagues in the immigration bar, and this blogger (here, here, here, here, here, here and there), provided the legal justification. 
• A Pulitzer winning journalist and my client, 31-year-old Jose Antonio Vargas, revealed his undocumented status in a New York Times Magazine article, formed Define American and toured the country speaking out on the pressing need for a solution to the immigration problems of his youthful compatriots who, like him, are citizens except on paper. 
• Vargas and fellow DREAMers -- just hours before the fateful change was announced -- appeared on the cover of Time Magazine and in this moving video:

Dismissing interruptions from an impudent, pull-up-the-gangplank journalist who immigrated from Ireland, and outcries from foes on the right (perhaps the most ironic from the author of the Bush torture memo assailing Obama's executive overreach), President Obama finally projected a modicum of courage. In a Rose Garden address, he announced that giving deferred action and work permits to DREAMers in the exercise of executive discretion is the "right thing to do."  

The task now falls to the Homeland Security Department's immigration components, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to review the anticipated flood of cases for deferred-action eligibility and issue work permits to a population of DREAMers estimated by the Pew Hispanic Center at 1.4 million.

Are they up to the job?  

The challenge will be daunting.  No new money has been appropriated. Existing agency personnel cannot possibly receive training and handle the workload without a funding mechanism.

Will the applicant tide overwhelm available resources? Can the foreseeable backlogs be avoided? How do those who want deferred action get it, given that DHS has consistently maintained that this act of prosecutorial discretion cannot be requested but must be conferred?

Here's what should be done:

• ICE and USCIS should publish regulations and OMB should approve them on an expedited basis.  Many informal pronouncements have been issued since Friday. The White House released a transcription of the President's Rose Garden announcement. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano published a memorandum to the heads of her component agencies, a press release and an FAQ. ICE issued an implementing memo. While helpful, these are no substitute for the publication of regulations that comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and a host of other federal laws requiring regulatory analyses and opportunities for public comment.  As Leland Beck urges in the Federal Regulations Advisor blog, "[w]ithout a regulation, the fragility of DHS’ policy position is clear – as a regulation may only be changed by another regulation, so a policy pronouncement may be changed by the whim of another policy pronouncement."  Given that presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney has declined to say whether a President Romney would reverse the DHS actions on DREAMers, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should insist that ICE and USCIS engage in formal rulemaking but insure that the process is completed within the 60 days mandated by President Obama and Secretary Napalitano.  
• USCIS should use the EAD application process as the platform for deferred action requests.  USCIS already issues Employment Application Documents (EADs) to persons granted deferred action under the authority of 8 CFR § 274.12(c)(14). This regulation states that a foreign citizen "who has been granted deferred action, . . . [can receive an EAD] if the alien establishes an economic necessity for employment." The application is made on Form I-765 and requires a filing fee of $380 (although fee waivers are possible). Since Secretary Napolitano has announced the deferred-action criteria "to be considered" for persons in the defined DREAMer class, USCIS should treat the Secretary's directions as a presumptive grant of deferred action as to those who submit evidence to show economic hardship and satisfy the deferred-action standards (entry to the U.S. before age 16, no older than 30, presence here for five years, presence on 6-15-2012, background checks, and absence of disqualifying criminal history).  By using the EAD application form to adjudicate deferred-action requests of persons never in removal proceedings, USCIS would streamline the process and receive $380 per application to pay for the cost of adjudication. In addition, ICE and USCIS should agree that USCIS -- as the adjudication agency -- should make a preliminary decision on deferred action, subject to an internal ICE veto, before approving or denying an EAD.
• USCIS should deploy officers trained in adjustment of status to adjudicate the deferred action EAD applications.  USCIS has trained adjudicators on hand to determine the key eligibility criteria to qualify for DREAMer classification.  Comparable criteria, involving essentially the same analysis, apply under the green card application process known as adjustment of status for persons seeking forgiveness from ineligibility under Immigration and Nationality Act § 245(i). Given the unavailability or retrogression of most employment-based immigrant visa quotas that begins next month, these officers will likely have time on their hands quite soon.  Additional adjudicators from the USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) -- once trained on DREAMer eligibility adjudications -- can be assigned to augment the adjustment adjudicators.  If needed, USCIS can also hire and train more adjudicators  -- assuming that $380 per EAD application is sufficient.  If the current EAD filing fee is insufficient to cover the cost of deferred action EAD adjudications -- a proposition I doubt given my insider sources with knowledge of filing-fee economics -- USCIS can make its case by publishing a proposed rule seeking to justify a higher fee.
• USCIS and ICE should apply the spirit of the new policy to deserving persons who fall outside its terms. There is no reason why the policy announced on Friday capped DREAMer eligibility below age 30 (other than that the age was reduced from less than 35 in the last failed Congressional effort).  Authority for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and the grant of deferred action still exists and can appropriately apply to many others because -- as Secretary Napolitano stated in her memo to agency leaders: "Our Nation's immigration laws must be enforced in a strong and sensible manner. They are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case. Nor are they designed to remove productive young people to countries where they may not have lived or even speak the language. Indeed, many of these young people have already contributed to our country in significant ways. Prosecutorial discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here." 
• Newly legal DREAMers, their supporters and the American people must push President Obama and Congress to enact Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR). As Fareed Zakaria has demonstrated in his compelling CNN special report, America's success in the global economy hinges on CIR.  Like a balloon held under water, CIR must eventually emerge.  Possibly ephemeral deferred action status and evanescent work permits are insufficient.  They are revocable, and offer no path to citizenship and no route to full integration into American society.  The undocumented parents of citizens and DREAMers alike also need to be allowed out of the shadows.  We must reform a system that New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg calls "national suicide." 

As Martin Luther King, Jr., the quintessential Dreamer, reminds us, "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."  Let's make sure our leaders are forced to shorten the arc and bend it quickly to reach its destination, equal justice under law.

An essay in today's New York Times, "Unexceptionalism:  A Primer," by the novelist, E. L. Doctorow, describes in four "phases" how America can take steps to become unexceptional, that is, "indistinguishable from the impoverished, traditionally undemocratic, brutal or catatonic countries in the world." 

Phase one begins with Bush v. Gore, a ruling that "ignore[s] the first sacrament of a democracy and suspend[s] the counting of ballots in a presidential election." 

Phase four ends with a naked power grab: 

If you're a justice of the Supreme Court, decide that the police of any and all cities and towns and villages have the absolute authority to strip-search any person whom they, for whatever reason, put under arrest.

In phase three, Doctorow turns to immigration -- the form of authentic American exceptionalism to which this blog is dedicated -- and says (ironically, to my law-trained mind):  

When possible, treat immigrants as criminals.  

He apparently assumes that exceptionalism declines when the foreign-born among us are locked away for trivial or modest immigration violations, even when they pose no threat of escape or of harm to society. He might also be suggesting that by separating them from their U.S. citizen relatives after their right to be in the U.S. has been tested and denied in removal (deportation) proceedings too often threatens American families with poverty and a life of needless suffering. 

In this he is right.  Immigrant detention -- promoted by a smart "ALEC" in retreat -- has become a huge business, an industry so successful that it lacks adequate facilities to house immigrant detainees, one where even children as young as eight are placed in "emergency" quarters on military bases.

If Doctorow instead meant to refer to the treatment of suspected wrongdoers under either the immigration or the criminal laws, this otherwise brilliant author is flat wrong. 

Criminal suspects are guaranteed rights that people charged with violating the immigration laws can only envy. Defendants in criminal trials in most cases enjoy the right to a trial by jury. Their guilt must be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution, they may only be convicted for conduct that Congress made illegal before the forbidden act occurred. Indigent criminal defendants are entitled to appointed defense counsel at government expense.

Whether rich or poor or in between, criminal suspects have Constitutionally endowed Miranda rights (the warning that anything they say to police can and will be used against them in a court of law). They have a right to examine any exculpatory evidence in the government's possession, and the right to confront the witnesses against them and insist that the court exclude purely hearsay evidence. The judges who preside in criminal cases are subject to the canons of judicial ethics. Criminal proceedings are transcribed by court reporters so as to establish an accurate record and make sure that the right to appeal a conviction is preserved.

Because of the legal charade that removal proceedings are "civil" and not "criminal" in nature, that deportation is not "punishment," foreign citizens whose immigration status is challenged at a removal hearing before an immigration judge enjoy no such rights.

Although not treated as punishment under the immigration laws, removal (or its virtual twin, inadmissibility) hurts no less.  A former Attorney General might just as well have been talking about removal rather than inadmissibility in Matter of S- and B-C, 9 I & N Dec. 436, at 447 (BIA 1960; A.G. 1961), when he said:

Shutting off the opportunity to come to the United States [or, as I would also put it, forcing someone to leave] actually is a crushing deprivation to many prospective [and current] immigrants. Very often it destroys the hopes and aspirations of a lifetime, and it frequently operates not only against the individual immediately but also bears heavily upon his family in and out of the United States.

If America treated immigrants in removal proceedings as if they were criminal defendants, the foreign-born whose status is at risk would enjoy significantly greater rights, and the harsh rule of immigration law would be tempered with justice.  At present, however, respondents in immigration proceedings are at greater likelihood of being found at fault than criminal defendants. Here's why:

• No presumption of innocence but proof "beyond doubt." An applicant for admission to the U.S. as well as a so-called "arriving alien" is not presumed innocent.  Rather s/he must prove "clearly and beyond doubt [that s/he is] entitled to be admitted and is not inadmissible. . . ." The "clearly and beyond doubt" burden of proof imposed on the foreign citizen is even more difficult to establish than the duty imposed on prosecutors to prove a criminal defendant's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."  Even for foreigners who have already been granted admission, the noncitizen (whose alienage the government has proven) must establish by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is in the U.S. based on a lawful admission.  Only then is the government required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is deportable.
• No Jury. Respondents in removal proceedings have no right to a jury trial.
• No government-paid legal counsel for the indigent or incapacitated. Unlike criminal defendants, respondents facing removal (even minors and the mentally impaired) who cannot afford a lawyer have no right to legal counsel at government expense.
• Late advisal of right to avoid self-incrimination. Immigrant respondents are only given Miranda warnings (by regulation rather than Constitutional guarantee) after a Notice to Appear before an immigration judge is served upon them.
• "Loosey-Goosey" rules of evidence. Hearsay evidence may be used against respondents in removal proceedings at the discretion of the immigration judge.
• Limited access to exculpatory evidence. Immigrant respondents are not automatically given access to evidence that may establish their innocence of the charges against them or their eligibility for relief from removal.  They must file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests or request the immigration judge's permission to subpoena documents or witnesses. Even if such evidence is not made available to the respondent, the immigration judge can find the person removable and ineligible for various types of discretionary relief.
• In-person proceedings with court reporters transcribing every word not allowed. Immigration court cases are conducted without court reporters.  Instead, they are audio- or video-recorded. Too often this denies them justice.  Audio recorders are often turned on and off at the sometimes hasty flick of an immigration judge's finger -- at times thereby leaving out crucial factual information or legal argument. At other times, the recordings are garbled, incomprehensible or defective. This is usually discovered months or years later on appeal, thus requiring a remand to the immigration judge for rehearing.  Live video recording -- which occurs with detained immigrants -- often interferes with the effective representation of counsel or prevents a clear understanding of the proceedings by the person most affected, the respondent.
• Retroactive culpability. Immigrants can be removed from the U.S. for conduct that would not have warranted deportation when the act was committed.  This is because Congress can and often does change the grounds for immigration removal retroactively.  There is no Ex Post Facto rule prohibiting deportation for past non-culpable conduct.
• Immigration judges not subject to canons of judicial ethics. Although proposals to impose a judicial ethics code on immigration judges have been suggested, they are not yet final. In criminal courts, however, judges are subject to ethical canons, patterned after the American Bar Association's Model Code of Judicial Conduct.

The civil-not-criminal distinction in removal proceedings may soon be meaningless.  If, as the prognosticators suggest, the Supreme Court upholds Section 3 of Arizona's S.B. 1070, which creates the crimes of being unlawfully present in the U.S. and of failing to register with the federal government, we may learn in a future case whether the lack of criminal defendants' rights in immigration proceedings can withstand Constitutional challenge. 

I'd rather see our leaders deservedly stake claim to the notion of American Exceptionalism and distinguish our nation "from the impoverished, traditionally undemocratic, brutal or catatonic countries in the world," by, whenever possible, granting immigrants the same legal rights as we give to criminal defendants.