The drop recorded in the last three months of 2011 may reflect the administration's plan to focus its deportation efforts by weighing discretionary factors, including whether the person is a veteran, came to the United States as a child or is a college student.
By Paloma Esquivel, Los Angeles Times
February 24, 2012
The number of deportation cases filed by federal immigration officials dropped by nearly a third in the first three months of the fiscal year, according to a report by the Syracuse University Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.
The drop recorded in the last three months of 2011 may reflect the Obama administration's plan to focus its deportation efforts by weighing a variety of discretionary factors, including whether the person is a veteran, came to the U.S. as a child or is a college student, according to the report. But experts said it's too soon to say if deportations overall will decline.
From October through December, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement initiated 39,331 deportation cases in immigration court, down from 58,639 the previous quarter, the report says. Filings are typically lower during the holiday months, but even adjusted for the seasonal drop-off the numbers are significantly lower, according to the authors.
Immigration officials said they have not had the opportunity to review the data to verify their accuracy but added that the numbers don't fully encompass the ways in which a person can be deported. The report, said ICE spokeswoman Gillian Christensen, is focused only on submissions for deportations made to immigration courts."
It ignores the fact that ICE regularly removes individuals without going through formal [immigration court] proceedings utilizing voluntary, administrative, expedited and stipulated removals as well the reinstatement of old removal orders," she said.
From October through early February, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed 121,780 people from the country, according to the agency.Immigration officials said a review of 300,000 deportation cases announced by the Obama administration in August is well underway and tens of thousands of cases have been reviewed.
Congress has provided enough funds for the ICE to deport about 400,000 people annually, and the administration has said it intends to focus those resources on cases deemed high-priority, including those involving national security, serious felons, individuals with lengthy criminal records, known gang members and others who pose a threat to public safety."
We're being smart about how we enforce the law. We're doing it in a way that makes sense and in a way that uses tax dollars effectively," said ICE spokeswoman Barbara Gonzalez. "Law enforcement has to have set priorities because the American public doesn't want us to just arrest the first 400,000 people we can remove. Why arrest the first 400,000 people when you can arrest those who are threats to the community?"
The proportion of filings during the period that sought deportation on grounds of alleged criminal activity was 14%, down from nearly 16% in the first quarter of fiscal year 2011. Those numbers led the report's authors to say there is little evidence cases are being better targeted toward serious criminals. But agency officials strongly disputed that notion as based on incomplete data."
As it has done in past reports, this report focuses only on the technical reasons why an individual is legally removable from the US and ignores the criminal history that triggered the decision to seek the person's removal," Christensen said.
The number of convicted criminals deported by the agency nearly doubled last year. So far, 52% of those removed this fiscal year are convicted criminals, Christensen said.
The report's analysis is based on case records obtained by the data research center under a Freedom of Information Act request made to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which administers the nation's immigration courts.
Some immigration attorneys said they have started to see a change in the types of cases the government pursues."
It's too early for me to say it's a trend," said Carl Shusterman, a Los Angeles-based immigration attorney and former trial attorney for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. "But it is something I didn't necessarily get in the past."
Before, if you had these Dream Act students and we wanted to keep them in the U.S., I'd have to go to a congressman and beg for a private bill. Now I can just go to a deportation officer who has the case and say, 'You know this person falls within these prosecutorial discretion guidelines. You don't really want to deport them, do you?' And they'll agree with you. That is a sea change."
Read the entire article at: latimes.com/news/local/la-me-deportation-drop-20120224,0,5847742.story
Many Bay Area deportation cases will be dropped in June
By Matt O'Brien Bay Area News Group Contra Costa Times
InsideBayArea.com
The federal government will begin closing hundreds of Bay Area deportation cases in June, allowing some illegal immigrants a partial reprieve if they have strong community ties and no criminal record.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review this summer will suspend the daily schedule of the San Francisco immigration court, one of the busiest in the nation, to allow a team of federal attorneys to scour the entire caseload for low-priority deportation cases to drop, according to a statement from the Department of Homeland Security obtained by this newspaper.
Among those who could benefit from the court review are students brought to the United States illegally at a young age who are otherwise upstanding residents. Although their deportation cases will be halted, the reprieve does not grant them legal residency or citizenship and authorities have the ability to seek their deportation later.
Following up on a six-week pilot program in Baltimore and Denver, immigration authorities will begin suspending cases at immigration courts across the country.
Of more than 11,000 cases reviewed in the pilot program, judges dropped about 16 percent in Denver and about 10 percent in Baltimore.
The San Francisco court alone has about 17,000 pending cases.
"San Francisco has one of the biggest caseloads in the country," said private immigration lawyer Randall Caudle.
"It forces them to pull all the pending cases and review them. That could be a little chaotic."
But some private lawyers say many of those most likely to have their cases closed would be better off trying to get a full immigration hearing.
"It's not a solution just to take somebody and tell them we're going to put your case on hold," said Laura Lichter, incoming president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, which met with federal authorities about the court reviews Thursday.
"I've got a real concern about people trying to really rocket through this procedure." Lichter defends immigrant clients in Denver and said only the clearest cases were closed.
"It's the people who have the middling cases, who aren't likely to win, otherwise good people, they should be taken off the top and they're not," she said. "They're just normal people trying to work and support their families."
Some judges will be reassigned to hear the cases of detained immigrants. Attorneys from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, will devote time to reviewing backlogged cases, administratively closing low-level cases and pursuing those they consider more serious.
The program will begin late April in Detroit, New Orleans, Orlando and Seattle. It will move to New York City in May, San Francisco in June and Los Angeles in July, according to the statement and lawyers briefed on the process.
Smaller courts will shut down their regular schedules for two weeks for the review, and larger courts will devote some judges to the review and others to their regular caseload.
The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee criticized the court-by-court review Thursday, saying it rewards lawbreakers by allowing them to remain here.
InsideBayArea.com
The federal government will begin closing hundreds of Bay Area deportation cases in June, allowing some illegal immigrants a partial reprieve if they have strong community ties and no criminal record.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review this summer will suspend the daily schedule of the San Francisco immigration court, one of the busiest in the nation, to allow a team of federal attorneys to scour the entire caseload for low-priority deportation cases to drop, according to a statement from the Department of Homeland Security obtained by this newspaper.
Among those who could benefit from the court review are students brought to the United States illegally at a young age who are otherwise upstanding residents. Although their deportation cases will be halted, the reprieve does not grant them legal residency or citizenship and authorities have the ability to seek their deportation later.
Following up on a six-week pilot program in Baltimore and Denver, immigration authorities will begin suspending cases at immigration courts across the country.
Of more than 11,000 cases reviewed in the pilot program, judges dropped about 16 percent in Denver and about 10 percent in Baltimore.
The San Francisco court alone has about 17,000 pending cases.
"San Francisco has one of the biggest caseloads in the country," said private immigration lawyer Randall Caudle.
"It forces them to pull all the pending cases and review them. That could be a little chaotic."
But some private lawyers say many of those most likely to have their cases closed would be better off trying to get a full immigration hearing.
"It's not a solution just to take somebody and tell them we're going to put your case on hold," said Laura Lichter, incoming president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, which met with federal authorities about the court reviews Thursday.
"I've got a real concern about people trying to really rocket through this procedure." Lichter defends immigrant clients in Denver and said only the clearest cases were closed.
"It's the people who have the middling cases, who aren't likely to win, otherwise good people, they should be taken off the top and they're not," she said. "They're just normal people trying to work and support their families."
Some judges will be reassigned to hear the cases of detained immigrants. Attorneys from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, will devote time to reviewing backlogged cases, administratively closing low-level cases and pursuing those they consider more serious.
The program will begin late April in Detroit, New Orleans, Orlando and Seattle. It will move to New York City in May, San Francisco in June and Los Angeles in July, according to the statement and lawyers briefed on the process.
Smaller courts will shut down their regular schedules for two weeks for the review, and larger courts will devote some judges to the review and others to their regular caseload.
The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee criticized the court-by-court review Thursday, saying it rewards lawbreakers by allowing them to remain here.
Obama Administration Expands Backdoor Amnesty
Washington, D.C - The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced its plans to expand backdoor amnesty. Beginning in late April, DHS will suspend all non-detained dockets for illegal immigrants in four additional jurisdictions, as it previously did in Baltimore and Denver, for two weeks. These jurisdictions include Detroit, New Orleans, Orlando, and Seattle. In May, DHS will partially suspend the non-detained docket in New York City and then in July, it will implement the same procedures in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
This means that DHS intends to solely focus on detained cases in these jurisdictions, meaning those who come to the attention of law enforcement. But if the illegal or criminal immigrant bonds out of jail, they can be put on the non-detained docket and could potentially remain in the U.S. This decision is just another part of the Obama administratios plan to grant administrative amnesty to potentially millions of illegal immigrants.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) issued the following statement criticizing the Obama administratis decision to expand backdoor amnesty.
Chairman Smith: The Obama administratis decision to expand its backdoor amnesty plan to cities across the United States endangers Americans and insults law enforcement officials.
The Obama administrations refusal to enforce immigration law encourages more illegal immigration and rewards those who have broken our laws by allowing them to remain here and apply for work authorization. And the Department of Homeland Security could let some criminal illegal immigrants, such as those charged with drunk driving, stay in the U.S. Why would the Obama administration knowingly jeopardize the health and lives of Americans?
A recent poll found that two-thirds of the American people want to see our immigration laws enforced. The Obama administration should put the interests of the American people ahead of those who have broken our immigration laws.
Background: In November, the Obama administration issued new deportation guidance instructing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys to review all incoming and most pending cases before an immigration court. These changes could potentially allow millions of illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. without a vote of Congress.
In reviewing the cases, the Obama administration has made clear that many illegal immigrants are not considerepriorities for removal, including potential DREAM Act beneficiaries, an illegal immigrant who has had a long-term presence in the U.S., has an immediate family member who is a U.S. citizen, and/or has compelling ties to the U.S.
This means that DHS intends to solely focus on detained cases in these jurisdictions, meaning those who come to the attention of law enforcement. But if the illegal or criminal immigrant bonds out of jail, they can be put on the non-detained docket and could potentially remain in the U.S. This decision is just another part of the Obama administratios plan to grant administrative amnesty to potentially millions of illegal immigrants.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) issued the following statement criticizing the Obama administratis decision to expand backdoor amnesty.
Chairman Smith: The Obama administratis decision to expand its backdoor amnesty plan to cities across the United States endangers Americans and insults law enforcement officials.
The Obama administrations refusal to enforce immigration law encourages more illegal immigration and rewards those who have broken our laws by allowing them to remain here and apply for work authorization. And the Department of Homeland Security could let some criminal illegal immigrants, such as those charged with drunk driving, stay in the U.S. Why would the Obama administration knowingly jeopardize the health and lives of Americans?
A recent poll found that two-thirds of the American people want to see our immigration laws enforced. The Obama administration should put the interests of the American people ahead of those who have broken our immigration laws.
Background: In November, the Obama administration issued new deportation guidance instructing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys to review all incoming and most pending cases before an immigration court. These changes could potentially allow millions of illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. without a vote of Congress.
In reviewing the cases, the Obama administration has made clear that many illegal immigrants are not considerepriorities for removal, including potential DREAM Act beneficiaries, an illegal immigrant who has had a long-term presence in the U.S., has an immediate family member who is a U.S. citizen, and/or has compelling ties to the U.S.
Mocking Humane Immigration Detention Standards
House Hearing Makes Light of Necessary Detention Reforms
March 28, 2012
Washington D.C. - Today, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on new immigration detention standards recently issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Cynically entitled “Holiday on ICE,” the hearing reflects Chairman Lamar Smith’s allegation that the new standards—which set minimum requirements for medical care, access to counsel, and other living conditions—are a “hospitality guideline” for detained immigrants. Roughly 34,000 immigrants, including lawful permanent residents, and many immigrants who have never been convicted of a crime, are detained under civil immigration laws each day. It is anticipated that the hearing will be a vehicle for promoting mandatory detention proposals sponsored by Chairman Smith, who maintains that more detention, rather than less, should be the goal of our civil immigration system.
Unfortunately, this critique ignores the often life-threatening problems that have plagued the U.S. detention system, which routinely places asylum-seekers, vulnerable women and children, and thousands of non-criminal immigrants into jails and prisons where they are locked up with dangerous criminals. Well-documented incidents of deaths in detention, sexual assault, and substandard conditions have led the Obama administration to prioritize detention reform. Among the steps taken to improve the current system has been a comprehensive update of current detention standards in consultation with the immigration community.
Even these modest improvements are too much for immigration critics who seek to institutionalize two systems of justice that tolerate different standards of care depending on whether one is incarcerated by the criminal justice system or the civil immigration system. While today’s House Judiciary hearing seeks to poke fun at the new standards, it is far more likely to highlight just how callous many of our lawmakers have become towards immigrants and immigration.
The following is a statement from Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council:
“Most Americans are surprised to learn that every day our country detains thousands of men, women, and children for civil immigration violations, where they are often housed with dangerous criminals or forced to endure prison-like conditions despite the fact that they pose no risk to society. Obviously our laws must be enforced, but the vast majority of those who face deportation are otherwise law-abiding, decent people who came here to find a better life for themselves or their families. Their punishment for violating our immigration laws is deportation and there is no rationale or justification for forcing them to also endure grueling and often inhumane conditions while they await deportation.”
For background on the immigration detention system and efforts to further expand its reach, see:
Locked Up Without End: Indefinite Detention of Immigrants Will Not Make America Safer by Michael Tan, IPC Special Report, October 6, 2011.
March 28, 2012
Washington D.C. - Today, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on new immigration detention standards recently issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Cynically entitled “Holiday on ICE,” the hearing reflects Chairman Lamar Smith’s allegation that the new standards—which set minimum requirements for medical care, access to counsel, and other living conditions—are a “hospitality guideline” for detained immigrants. Roughly 34,000 immigrants, including lawful permanent residents, and many immigrants who have never been convicted of a crime, are detained under civil immigration laws each day. It is anticipated that the hearing will be a vehicle for promoting mandatory detention proposals sponsored by Chairman Smith, who maintains that more detention, rather than less, should be the goal of our civil immigration system.
Unfortunately, this critique ignores the often life-threatening problems that have plagued the U.S. detention system, which routinely places asylum-seekers, vulnerable women and children, and thousands of non-criminal immigrants into jails and prisons where they are locked up with dangerous criminals. Well-documented incidents of deaths in detention, sexual assault, and substandard conditions have led the Obama administration to prioritize detention reform. Among the steps taken to improve the current system has been a comprehensive update of current detention standards in consultation with the immigration community.
Even these modest improvements are too much for immigration critics who seek to institutionalize two systems of justice that tolerate different standards of care depending on whether one is incarcerated by the criminal justice system or the civil immigration system. While today’s House Judiciary hearing seeks to poke fun at the new standards, it is far more likely to highlight just how callous many of our lawmakers have become towards immigrants and immigration.
The following is a statement from Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council:
“Most Americans are surprised to learn that every day our country detains thousands of men, women, and children for civil immigration violations, where they are often housed with dangerous criminals or forced to endure prison-like conditions despite the fact that they pose no risk to society. Obviously our laws must be enforced, but the vast majority of those who face deportation are otherwise law-abiding, decent people who came here to find a better life for themselves or their families. Their punishment for violating our immigration laws is deportation and there is no rationale or justification for forcing them to also endure grueling and often inhumane conditions while they await deportation.”
For background on the immigration detention system and efforts to further expand its reach, see:
Locked Up Without End: Indefinite Detention of Immigrants Will Not Make America Safer by Michael Tan, IPC Special Report, October 6, 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)