Search

Executive Summary: This paper examines the staffing needs of the US Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), as it seeks to eliminate an immigration court backlog, which approached 2.5 million pending cases at the end of fiscal year (FY) 2023. A previous study by the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) attributed the backlog to systemic, long-neglected problems in the broader US immigration system. This paper provides updated estimates of the number of immigration judges (IJs) and "judge teams" (IJ teams) needed to eliminate the backlog over ten and five years based on different case receipt and completion scenarios. It also introduces a data tool that will permit policymakers, administrators and researchers to make their own estimates of IJ team hiring needs based on changing case receipt and completion data. Finally, the paper outlines the pressing need for reform of the US immigration system, including a well-resourced, robust, and independent court system, particularly in light of record "encounters" of migrants at US borders in FY 2022 and 2023. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

He spoke about the causes of the growing immigration court backlog, particularly the "imbalance in resources" between the court system and the immigration enforcement agencies that feed cases into the courts. Immigration court reform through the creation of an Article 1 immigration court or, in the alternative, legislation to allow USCIS to review (first) all applications for immigration status. Keywords: rule of law; due process; asylum; access to justice; immigration courts EN rule of law due process asylum access to justice immigration courts 228 237 10 07/25/23 20230601 NES 230601 This paper introduces a special collection of papers on access to justice, the rule of law, and due process in the US immigration system. US Immigration Courts, despite their challenges, represent a locus of due process in the US immigration system and "the first exposure of many immigrants to due process and the rule of law in the United States.". [Extracted from the article]

The US immigration court system seeks to "fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly administer and interpret US immigration laws" (DOJ 2022a). It represents the first exposure of many immigrants to due process and the rule of law in the United States, and occupies an integral role in the larger US immigration system. Yet it labors under a massive backlog of pending cases that undermines its core goals and objectives. The backlog reached 1.87 million cases in the first quarter of FY 2023 (Straut-Eppsteiner 2023, 6). This paper attributes the backlog to systemic failures in the broader immigration system that negatively affect the immigration courts, such as: Visa backlogs, United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) application processing delays, and other bottlenecks in legal immigration processes. The immense disparity in funding between the court system and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies that feed cases into the courts. The failure of Congress to pass broad immigration reform legislation that could ease pressure on the enforcement and court systems. The lack of standard judicial authorities vested in Immigration Judges (IJs), limiting their ability to close cases; pressure parties to "settle" cases; and manage their dockets. The absence of a statute of limitations for civil immigration offenses. Past DHS failures to establish and adhere to enforcement priorities and to exercise prosecutorial discretion (PD) throughout the removal adjudication process, including in initial decisions to prosecute. The location of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees US immigration courts, within the nation's preeminent law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice (DOJ). The misconception of many policymakers that the court system should primarily serve as an adjunct to DHS. A past record of temporary judge reassignments and government shutdowns. The paper supports a well-resourced and independent immigration court system devoted to producing the right decisions under the law. Following a short introduction, a long section on "Causes and Solutions to the Backlog" examines the multi-faceted causes of the backlog, and offers an integrated, wide-ranging set of recommendations to reverse and ultimately eliminate the backlog. The "Conclusion" summarizes the paper's topline findings and policy proposals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the ways in which contemporary mobility dynamics in Mexico have changed over the last decade, leading to protracted displacement. It focuses on three populations: (1) the internally displaced due to violence; (2) Mexican nationals returning from the United States, both voluntarily and due to deportation; and (3) populations seeking asylum in Mexico and the United States. These three populations are not usually analyzed together and do not squarely fall under the traditional legal definitions. The paper outlines ways that situations of protracted displacement and insecurity present challenges in four interconnected arenas of life: housing, legal status, employment, and emotional well-being. For governments and local communities, protracted displacement requires immediate humanitarian responses and the development and implementation of public policies focused on integration. The paper concludes with a set of policy recommendations based on its findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trauma-informed (T-I) approaches to working with vulnerable people have gained popularity in practice but are rarely used in academic research and little is known about the challenges of conducting a T-I approach to participatory research. This paper reflects on our experiences of a participatory peer research project involving unaccompanied young people seeking asylum (16–25 years) during the Covid-19 pandemic. Whilst the project adhered to a robust ethical framework, it became apparent at an early stage in the empirical phase that our methods needed to acknowledge and accommodate the trauma of those involved in the project much more thoughtfully and effectively than our ethical framework suggested. With this in mind, we set about identifying the key elements of a T-I approach to research and how these might add value to research with vulnerable and marginalised populations. Our model of a T-I approach to peer research is framed around five core principles: working reflectively with those with lived experience; contextualising trauma; nurturing trust; showing care; and empowering those involved in and affected by the research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presidents are increasingly relying on a mode of governing—presidentialism—that produces radical shifts in public policy through the administrative state, rather than through Congress. Most recently, using the tools of the administrative state rather than legislative action, the Trump Administration has reinterpreted the laws governing asylum, especially as to citizens from Central America seeking refuge from violence and dire poverty. Through a legal analysis of the judiciary's response to these reforms, this article examines the limits and constraints of presidential administrative power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article uses a multidisciplinary approach -- analyzing historical sources, refugee and asylum admissions data, legislative provisions, and public opinion data -- to track the rise and fall of the US asylum and refugee policy. It shows that there has always been a political struggle between people who advocate for a generous refugee and asylumsystemand those who oppose it. Today, the flexible systemof protecting refugees and asylees, established in 1980, is giving way to policies that weaponize them. It offers a historical analysis of US refugee and asylumpolicies, as well as xenophobic and nativist attitudes toward refugees. It places Trump administration refugee policies in three categories: those that abandon longstanding US legal principles and policies, most notably non-refoulement and due process; those that block the entry of refugees and asylees; and those that criminalize foreign nationals who attempt to seek asylum in the United States. The article concludes with an analysis of public opinion research to square the growing public support for refugees and asylees shown in polling data with the subgroup popularity ofDonald Trump's harsh xenophobic rhetoric and policies. These seemingly contradictory trends are consistent with research on right-wing populism. It argues that the restoration of generous humanitarian policies requires robust civic engagement and steadfast legislative efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Analysis of U.S. immigration, border defense, and national security policies and their impact on individuals, families, and communities from Mexico and Central America who have migrated or fled to the United States as refugees since the mid-1980s suggests that through immigration programs such as Prevention through Deterrence, the United States has crafted a set of policies that creates “preemptive suspects”—categories of people from Central America and Mexico that may be systematically excluded as dangerous, criminal, undeserving, and less valuable than U.S. citizens.Un análisis de las políticas de inmigración, defensa fronteriza y seguridad nacional y su impacto en individuos, familias y comunidades de México y Centroamérica que residen en los Estados Unidos como inmigrantes o refugiados desde mediados de la década de 1980 sugiere que los Estados Unidos ha creado, a través de programas migratorios como la Prevención por Disuasión, un conjunto de políticas que generan “sospechosos preventivos,” es decir, categorías de personas de América Central y México que pueden ser sistemáticamente excluidas como peligrosas, criminales, indignas y de menos valor que los ciudadanos estadunidenses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Substantial variation in recognition rates for asylum claims from the same countries of origin subjects refugees to unfair and discriminatory treatment. This article demonstrates the extent of variation and lack of convergence over the period from 1980 to 1999 across Western European destination countries. Refugee interest groups also suspect that political and economic conditions in destination countries, as well as the number of past asylum claims, unduly affect recognition rates. This article estimates the determinants of asylum recognition rates. Origin-specific recognition rates vary, as they should, with the extent of political oppression, human rights violations, interstate armed conflict, and events of genocide and politicide in countries of origin. Recognition rates for the full-protection status are lower only in times of high unemployment in destination countries. Such rates are also lower if many asylum seekers from a country of origin have already applied for asylum in the past. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]