My new article with @stevenshafer, “Measuring in Absentia Removal in Immigration Court” is now out @PennLRev: pennlawreview.com/2020/06/21/mea…. We study judge decisions to deport noncitizens without first providing them a day in court, a procedure known as in absentia removal. 1/6
Bold assertions by President Trump and others that immigrants “never” appear in court drive central policy decisions on immigration enforcement, including growing immigration detention, limiting access to asylum, and building a border wall. But, are these claims true? 2/6
We examined #EOIR court cases from 2008 to 2018. We find that 88% of all immigrants in immigration court with completed or pending removal cases attended all of their court hearings during the 11 year period studied. Much more detail in the paper. 3/6
In our new study we also find that people who are represented by an attorney almost always come to #immigration court: since 2008, 96% of respondents with counsel attended all of their court hearings in pending and completed nondetained cases. #DueProcess4All 4/6
We also find that 15% of people deported in absentia later reopened their cases. This underscores that court attendance must be considered against the backdrop of a pervasive failure by DHS to include the time and date of hearings in charging documents. #DueProcessDenied 5/6
We offer recommendations for improvements in @DOJ_EOIR statistical reporting. We also argue in favor of creating an independent immigration court and establishing new systems for notifying respondents about the time and date of their court hearings. @Imm_Judges_NAIJ 6/6
