Thursday, November 11, 2010

The Immigration Court Amnesty

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement apparently can't shoot straight. It appears that 63% of the deportation cases it presents to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), an office in the Department of Justice responsible for reviewing deportation charges, are rejected for one reason or another. (h/t American Patrol)

Federal immigration judges in Los Angeles rejected 63 percent of deportation requests this year filed byImmigration and Customs Enforcement officials — the third highest number in the nation, according to areport by a data-gathering organization at Syracuse University.

One of the primary reasons for the rejections appears to be that judges found the government had no legitimate grounds for seeking a removal order, according to the report released Tuesday by theTransactional Records Access Clearinghouse. The Los Angeles Immigration Court serves Orange County, as well as other surrounding counties.

The number of denials in Los Angeles has significantly increased in the last couple of years, peaking in Fiscal Year 2010, according to the report. That rejection rate is mirrored in large cities such as New York City, Portland, and Miami. Los Angeles ranks third for highest deportation denials...

The report stated that in Los Angeles, 27 percent of the cases were turned down in 2010 because the court determined there were no grounds for removal of the person in question. About 29 percent were granted some sort of relief to remain in the country.

Two years ago, 43 percent of deportation requests presented by ICE officials in Los Angeles were denied by immigration judges. About 9 percent of the cases were turned down because the judge found no grounds for removal, according to the report.

Susan Long, co-author of the report, said they were unable to determine why there were no grounds for deportation in the cases in question because ICE officials refused to release the information.

The number is astounding, even by the usual sabotage expected from the generally incompitant political appointees that permeate the EOIR. Generally Hearing Officers, commonly but mistakenly referred to as immigration judges, have little knowledge of immigration law as they are chosen from the ranks of minor contributors or functionaries of political campaigns or the immigration bar. Since they are not real judges in any sense, their selection should be restricted to attorneys already employed by the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security as those are the only attorneys familiar not only with immigration law, but also the intent of the immigration laws, which is to remove illegal aliens with dispatch. Previously there was no independent hearing outside of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service. The idea was that aliens would get an independent review of the facts presented by the INS to another agency of the Department of Justice so as to avoid mistakenly deporting an alien authorized to be in the U.S. However the EOIR evolved into a quasi-judicial agency removed from the intent of immigration laws and their raison d'etre. Instead of administering the laws of the U.S. they became enamored with visions of grandeur as mini-Warren Court within the DOJ dealing with immigration. They forgot that they were a subordinate office in a large bureaucracy that is charged with executing the laws of the U.S. not creating their own law and policy independent of the executive branch. It was if the Office of the Solicitor General decided that it was no longer subordinate to the Attorney General and the President, and established itself as a 4th branch of government, ignoring the Constitution's mandate that the executive branch was unitary and laws were executed by the President.

What appears to be happening is that, especially in major cities run by left-wing governments, the EOIR is acting independently and outside the Constitution, making their own immigration policy. The core of this revolution from within the EOIR is centered in New York City with the highest level of denials of orders for deportation at 69%. With other major cities at slightly lower levels, but at extraordinary high historic levels. The EOIR appears to be running its own amnesty program.

The questions are whether the Obama Regime and ICE are either encouraging or quiescing to the usurpation of the Constitution and the law or is actually part of their strategy. It is clear that the Regime considers this usurpation to be part of its amnesty strategy, as the Regime consistently fails to appeal decisions of the EOIR to the Board of Immigration Appeals, also part of the DOJ and the appellate office for EOIR decisions or to the Attorney General who acts as the final appeal for all EOIR and BIA decisions. Also of interest, the Regime continues to fail to fully implement expedited removal whereby DHS can bypass the EOIR and directly remove aliens without any hearing.

It is simply absurd that the EOIR can say that so many aliens are not removable, claiming that there are no grounds for removal. That claim is clearly counter-factual as ICE spends more time not arresting illegal aliens than it actually enforcing the immigration laws. The few cases it does present are most certainly the most obvious and flagrant violations of law. Such decisions are clearly then politically motivated in favor of amnesty and against enforcement. But since those decisions are made by executive branch employees, then either the Obama Regime is allowing an incompetent ICE to continue to arrest innocent aliens or it is allowing the Hearing Officers of the EOIR to run an under-the-radar amnesty.

No comments: