Thread by @NicoletteGlazer

Hmmm ... thankful for the efforts but this PM is a ticking bomb once immigration hearings resume: makes the life of IJs and DHS easier to meet quotas and churn decisions, ain't good at all for immigrants seeking their day in court. Sorry to spoil the rejoicing.

https://twitter.com/Imm_Judges_NAIJ/status/1240454222652440576

here is the link to the PM

naij-usa.org/images/uploads…

First the good stuff.
Love the building entry ban for ppl w symptoms, travel, etc.

Also emphasizing use of you know lawyerly things like stipulations, waiver of resp presence, joint motions. It would be nice if OPLA actually takes that to heart.

Reminding IJs that phone appearance are a thing is also great. It will be nice if ALL IJ are capable to get it & not play the sit on a tele motion for 3 weeks game. Also, even today colleagues were saying some IJs (will remain nameless) are denying tele appr for detained merits.

Now for the shit that bothers me with this PM once it gets to be applied to all resumed hearings.
1/ "IJ may conduct individual merits hearings by
telephone in removal proceedings if the alien consents after being advised of the right to proceed in person or through VTC".

In time of pandemic this is a lifesaver, but in normal times (hoping this is really soon) this could be horrid for detained respondents. Don't get me wrong but this *will* attract a lot of bad representation from ppl who know little about immigration law but offer cheaper price.

Conducting a merits hearing by phone under non-pandemic conditions is BAD, plain and simple. Doing a direct in an asylum hrg is tough in person, not being able to make an eye contact with your client in a life or death kinda case is a non-starter for me.

2/ "holding a hrg for a represented resp on a contested issue of removability which involves solely a pure legal question []is a disfavored practice. Immigration judges are encouraged to resolve such issues based on briefing from the parties."

Eliminating oral arguments is BAD.

Don't know about you, but even on fully briefed cases (the surreply & all) I probably would have lost half of termination motions had I not been allowed to argue at the hearing.

3/ This one is the worst:
Holding hrg following "motion to pretermit to which the opposing party has had an opportunity to respond in a case in which the ruling on the motion is dispositive of the outcome of the case is also a disfavored practice. ...

"... Immigration judges should adjudicate motions in an expeditious manner and are encouraged to resolve cases based on the filings of the parties to the maximum extent
practicable in accordance with the law."

Let me unpack this one.

W all of Admin's efforts to close So border to asylum (metering, #asylumban, unSafe 3rd county, transit ban & anything else they would be throwing at us) this means
1. you file applic for relief at master
2. DHS serves M to pretermit
3. Briefing
4. IJ issue removal order NO HRG.

With the pretermit motion on steroids the rocket docket will seem quaint!

Now for the 4/:
VTC hrgs "especially for cases involving detained aliens, should be conducted through those mediums to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the law. In particular, reviews of negative credible fear determinations may be heard by telephone or by VTC."

They are doing now but I expect this is to become 100% kind a practice. Again convenience & technology is wonderful but not when it means a person will be sent back to a place they face torture or death.

So as I said at the start this PM is gonna do wonders for easing the IJ's stress about meeting quotas. For the non citizens fighting for their lives & rights it means due process be damned.