 |
 |
|
|
 |
U.S. Attorney General Issues a Memo to Criticize Immigration Judges With more illegal or legal immigrants coming to the United States , immigration judges become busier. Under the law, Immigration Judges are administrative judges, not in the independent judicial system, but a part of the Department of Justice. Immigration Judges are responsible for conducting formal court proceedings, and act independently in deciding the matters before them. Their decisions are administratively final unless appealed or certified to the Board of Immigration Appeals. In removal proceedings, Immigration Judges determine whether an alien should be allowed to enter or remain in the United States . They also have jurisdiction to consider various forms of relief from removal. In a typical removal proceeding, the Immigration Judge may decide whether an alien is deportable or inadmissible under the law, then may consider whether that alien may avoid forced removal by accepting voluntary departure or by qualifying for asylum, cancellation of removal, adjustment status, protection under the United Nations Convention against Torture, or other forms of relief. If the Board of Immigration Appeals made unfavorable decision against an alien again, the alien can still appeal to Federal Appeal Courts. In fact, more aliens choose to appeal to Federal Appeal Courts. Immigration cases, most involving asylum seekers, accounted for about 17 percent of all federal appeals cases in 2005, up from just 3 percent in 2001. In the courts in New York and California , nearly 40 percent of federal appeals involved immigration cases. While most immigration judges professionally discharge their difficult duties, some immigration judges incurred harsh criticism from Federal appeals court judges around this country because they were thought to make biased and incoherent decisions in asylum cases very often. For example, in one decision, Richard A. Posner, a Federal Appeals Court judge in Chicago , concluded that "the adjudication of these cases at the administrative level has fallen below the minimum standards of legal justice." Similarly, in September 2005, the Federal Appeals Court in Philadelphia said that it had "time and time again" been forced to rebuke immigration judges for their "intemperate and humiliating remarks." To address this problem, on January 9, 2006, the U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales issued a memo to criticize those immigration judges. He said that there are some immigration judges whose conduct can aptly be described as intemperate or even abusive and whose work must improve. Moreover, he has asked the Deputy Attorney General and the Associate Attorney General to develop a comprehensive review of the immigration courts including the quality of work as well as the manner in which it is performed and encompass both the Immigration Court and the Board of Immigration Appeals. With Mr. Gonzales's memo, we wish that each immigrant, no matter he/she is an illegal or legal immigrant, shall be treated with courtesy and respect in the future.
(01/14/2006) For more immigration news, please click here |
|
"The best way to |
| New York | Houston | Chicago | Austin | Los Angeles | |||
