New! @DOJ_EOIR is *finally* moving forward with its long-planned deployment of electronic filing at the immigration courts, through a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that may hopefully bring the agency into the 21st century.
In the new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EOIR is proposing to expand its e-filing pilot program (ECAS) to all immigration courts nationwide.
ECAS post-dates my time in immigration court so I'll defer to others on how well that system has worked so far.
EOIR proposes that all new cases in immigration courts which implement the new e-filing programs would get an "electronic Record of Proceedings" rather than a paper file.
BUT—this would only apply to NEW cases. The current 1.25 million cases would not be converted to electronic.
Once the new electronic filing system is in place at a court, all attorneys (including DHS) will be required to file documents electronically, with limited exceptions allowing judges to accept some documents in open court.
BIA-accredited reps will have to opt-in to e-filing.
Under the proposal, law students and law grads who practice in immigration court would be required to file all documents through their attorney supervisor's account, and additionally mandate for the first time that the supervisor enter an appearance and appear for all hearings.
Importantly, the new regulation would provide that service is automatically completed if both parties are enrolled in the e-filing system.
That would mean no need to independently confirm proof of service in most cases—it would be automatically done by an electronic filing.
Similarly, the regulations would be updated to allow EOIR to serve documents electronically, with the requirement of course that parties maintain an active email address. That means hearing notices, orders, and decisions would be filed electronically — like in most other courts.
EOIR would also permit the use of electronic signatures on filing, and requests comment on the form of that.
Sadly, EOIR would NOT expand the program where the BIA accepts payment for appeals electronically. You would still have to pay for applications with USCIS, but now you could scan the fee receipt and file that electronically.
Anyway, this looks like a welcome step towards @DOJ_EOIR moving into the 21st century. Electronic case filing, and the ability to review a file without having to go to the court in person, is desperately needed! But unfortunately, the proposal would only apply to new cases.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Judge Chhabria has had enough of ICE and GEO’s failure to protect people from COVID!
“From the start of the public health crisis until now, the conduct of the key ICE and GEO officials in charge of operations at Mesa Verde has been appalling.”
“These [ICE and GEO] officials knew that they needed a clear and detailed plan to minimize the risk of an outbreak (and to contain an outbreak if one occurred), but nine months later they still have not created one. They deliberately avoided testing detainees ...”
“... and staff for fear that the results would require them to take expensive and logistically challenging safety measures. They failed to address the safety concerns created by Mesa Verde’s unique layout, which makes it far more dangerous ... “
The new policy memo from @DOJ_EOIR declares that, because in "most cases" immigrants with counsel waive the required reading of rights that occurs at the initial hearing, it's okay to end initial hearings for ALL immigrants with counsel—a wildly arbitrary decision.
Furthermore, @DOJ_EOIR's new policy memo contains a wildly inaccurate claim; that asylum seekers are highly likely to have counsel. They rely on a warped statistic—the percent of asylum APPLICANTS who have counsel.
But that ignores people who, without a lawyer, can't apply!
In today's oral argument, 7 of 9 Supreme Court justices used the phrase "illegal alien" to describe individuals currently lacking a lawful immigration status in the US.
A brief thread on the origin of the phrase, whether judges are required to use it, and why they shouldn't.
Many people claim that the phrase "illegal alien" is somehow required by law—that it's the only accurate one.
But the entire Immigration and Nationality Act (and indeed all of Title 8 of the U.S. Code) uses the phrase just six times total—and most of those date back to 1996.
2/
Since "illegal alien" isn't a term that comes from the black letter law, is it a phrase with a long history in the courts?
Nope! The first use of the phrase in a federal case came from a 1950 case called Waisboard v. United States, from the following very colorful opening.
In 2016, Chad Mizelle, a 29-year-old first-year associate volunteered for the Trump campaign. Four years later:
- He’s DHS Acting General Counsel
- His wife is a federal judge
- One law school friend and groomsman is Deputy General Counsel at DHS. Another has a DOJ job.
Here’s some more background on the groomsman I highlighted. Ian Brekke was named Deputy General Counsel at DHS with three years of experience as a law firm associate. At the time, Mizelle was at the White House where he was a close ally to Stephen Miller.
Here's an article written in February when Mizelle was named the Acting General Counsel (technically the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the General Counsel).
Many people are ordered deported by an immigration judge but cannot BE deported. This is usually because their country of nationality will not take them.
For decades, these people have been able to get work permits, since they're not going anywhere. Now DHS wants to end that.
The proposal could affect tens of thousands of people who currently have these work permits, many of whom have lived in the United States for decades, working legally and paying taxes.
Every year, USCIS approves 20,000-30,000 of these work permit applications (inc. renewals).