Things I Didn't Know...
...But should have.
Today's NY Times has a rather stunning article about an immigration judge who had his chops busted by the federal appeals court.
An immigration judge in New York who has been repeatedly rebuked by federal appeals judges for his hostile questioning of asylum-seekers was relieved of courtroom duties yesterday and reassigned to a desk job, lawyers and a union official said.
The judge, Jeffrey S. Chase, has been portrayed by supporters and even by some of his critics as a scapegoat in an escalating battle between the Justice Department, which employs immigration judges, and federal circuit courts around the country.
The circuit courts have been overwhelmed with asylum appeals since the Bush administration curtailed an internal immigration appeals process, and have complained of a pattern of biased and incoherent decisions and bullying conduct by immigration judges, who are not part of the independent federal judiciary. [Emphasis added]
First of all, I did not know that immigration judges are not part of the independent federal judiciary, but are employees of the Justice Department. I'm a little embarrassed about that, primarily because my law practice is almost totally before administrative law judges. The first tier of many systems is administrative in nature (among them workers' compensation on both the state and federal level, Social Security, unemployment benefit disputes). There is nothing inherently evil in such systems if the proper safeguards are in place, such as procedures for timely internal reviews and appeals and effective monitoring of those holding the ALJ position. The benefit of such a procedure is that, at least theoretically, cases are heard more quickly than they would be heard in a civil court.
I say theoretically because if there aren't enough administrative law judges with adequate support staff, the backlogs kill any speedy decisions. The next thing I learned from the Times article is that there are only 215 immigration judges for the whole country to handle more than 350,000 cases a year. That some of those judges would behave as Judge Chase allegedly behaved should come as no surprise:
incredulous tirades became his trademark in many Chinese asylum cases, according to court records and interviews with a dozen lawyers. Openly frustrated with a pattern of boilerplate claims that he suspected had been concocted by smugglers, he adopted “an inquisitorial mode,” said Thomas V. Masucci, a lawyer who represented many Chinese asylum-seekers in his court.
The tables turned after appeals reached federal court last year. In scathing decisions, the court rebuked Judge Chase for “pervasive bias and hostility,” “combative and insulting language,” and remarks “implying that any asylum claim based on China’s coercive family planning policies would be presumed incredible.”
In the usual administrative law system, an internal review process would quickly nip such behavior before it reached the federal court system (itself overburdened by the numbers of cases which must be heard). Here's the next thing I learned (but should have known, all things about the Bush administration considered): the Justice Department "curtailed" such a process, which means the federal courts have had those cases shoved on them prematurely.
But wait, there's more:
In response to the mounting pressure, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales warned immigration judges last August that they all faced annual performance evaluations for the first time and regular oversight to detect high reversal rates, frequent complaints or unusual backlogs. [Emphasis added]
A federal employee with no regular oversight and no annual performance evaluation? How stupid is that? The Justice Department is in worse shape than I thought.
Today's NY Times has a rather stunning article about an immigration judge who had his chops busted by the federal appeals court.
An immigration judge in New York who has been repeatedly rebuked by federal appeals judges for his hostile questioning of asylum-seekers was relieved of courtroom duties yesterday and reassigned to a desk job, lawyers and a union official said.
The judge, Jeffrey S. Chase, has been portrayed by supporters and even by some of his critics as a scapegoat in an escalating battle between the Justice Department, which employs immigration judges, and federal circuit courts around the country.
The circuit courts have been overwhelmed with asylum appeals since the Bush administration curtailed an internal immigration appeals process, and have complained of a pattern of biased and incoherent decisions and bullying conduct by immigration judges, who are not part of the independent federal judiciary. [Emphasis added]
First of all, I did not know that immigration judges are not part of the independent federal judiciary, but are employees of the Justice Department. I'm a little embarrassed about that, primarily because my law practice is almost totally before administrative law judges. The first tier of many systems is administrative in nature (among them workers' compensation on both the state and federal level, Social Security, unemployment benefit disputes). There is nothing inherently evil in such systems if the proper safeguards are in place, such as procedures for timely internal reviews and appeals and effective monitoring of those holding the ALJ position. The benefit of such a procedure is that, at least theoretically, cases are heard more quickly than they would be heard in a civil court.
I say theoretically because if there aren't enough administrative law judges with adequate support staff, the backlogs kill any speedy decisions. The next thing I learned from the Times article is that there are only 215 immigration judges for the whole country to handle more than 350,000 cases a year. That some of those judges would behave as Judge Chase allegedly behaved should come as no surprise:
incredulous tirades became his trademark in many Chinese asylum cases, according to court records and interviews with a dozen lawyers. Openly frustrated with a pattern of boilerplate claims that he suspected had been concocted by smugglers, he adopted “an inquisitorial mode,” said Thomas V. Masucci, a lawyer who represented many Chinese asylum-seekers in his court.
The tables turned after appeals reached federal court last year. In scathing decisions, the court rebuked Judge Chase for “pervasive bias and hostility,” “combative and insulting language,” and remarks “implying that any asylum claim based on China’s coercive family planning policies would be presumed incredible.”
In the usual administrative law system, an internal review process would quickly nip such behavior before it reached the federal court system (itself overburdened by the numbers of cases which must be heard). Here's the next thing I learned (but should have known, all things about the Bush administration considered): the Justice Department "curtailed" such a process, which means the federal courts have had those cases shoved on them prematurely.
But wait, there's more:
In response to the mounting pressure, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales warned immigration judges last August that they all faced annual performance evaluations for the first time and regular oversight to detect high reversal rates, frequent complaints or unusual backlogs. [Emphasis added]
A federal employee with no regular oversight and no annual performance evaluation? How stupid is that? The Justice Department is in worse shape than I thought.
Labels: Immigration, Justice Department
posted by Diane at 9:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home