When Attorney General Jeff Sessions on June 11 overruled the decision in a controversial immigration case called Matter of A-B-, he made it harder for women escaping sexual and physical abuse to qualify for asylum in the United States.
Can the US attorney general unilaterally overturn a court case?
Yes, because, as I teach my surprised law students, immigration judges are not part of the judicial branch. They are attorneys in the Department of Justice.
That means normal assumptions about judicial independence and freedom from political influence do not apply in immigration proceedings.
How Immigration Trials Work
People end up in immigration court for various reasons.
Refugees who fled persecution in their country can apply for asylum in the U.S. People facing deportation may request “cancellation of removal,” which allows them to stay in the country. Other noncitizens may be in the process of becoming a legal permanent US resident.
Their cases will be heard by one of approximately 330 immigration judges who preside over 58 US immigration courts. As of March 2018, these courts had 345,000 active cases, which averages out to about 1,000 cases per judge.
That’s double the caseload of federal district court judges, and immigration courts have tighter budgets and far less administrative support.
As a result, the immigration court system is congested. Cases can take years to complete.
Immigration judges issued 137,875 decisions in 2016, according to DOJ statistics. Just under 70 percent were deportation orders.
Who Does What?
Immigration proceedings look much like a criminal trial, but the process does not come with the same constitutional protections.
Immigrants are not entitled to a court-appointed defense attorney, for example. They may hire a lawyer or, if they’re lucky, find pro bono counsel.
Only 37 percent of all immigrants have an attorney to represent them in immigration court.
Immigrants who’ve been convicted of certain crimes, including low-level offenses, are subject to mandatory detention during their immigration hearings. They are often brought into the courtroom wearing a jumpsuit and shackles. Eighty-six percent of immigrants who’ve been detained will appear without a lawyer.
Immigration trials also lack other constitutional safeguards required in criminal trials.
The judge is from the Department of Justice, which has law enforcement duties determined by the attorney general. Since the government’s prosecutor comes from Immigration and Customs Enforcement – a Department of Homeland Security agency tasked with immigration enforcement – their political priorities may overlap.
In a normal federal trial, the judge would be an independent member of the US judiciary, a different branch of government.
The Administrative Appeals Process
Immigrants may appeal an immigration judge’s deportation order to the Board of Immigration Appeals, a Virginia-based Department of Justice agency. About 9 percent choose to do so.
The Board currently has 20 members, 16 full-time and four temporary. Individually or as a panel, they decide roughly 30,000 appeals per year.
To expedite the process, the Board of Immigration Appeals frequently issues decisions that “affirm without opinion,” meaning it can confirm a deportation order without providing any reasoning or explanation.
US law permits the attorney general to intervene in this appeals process.
The attorney general can take over a case at the request of the Board of Immigration Appeals or direct it to refer a case to him. Historically, most have done so just once or twice a year. Sessions has reviewed four immigration cases in 2018 alone.
Federal regulations also empower the attorney general to overrule the board, decide what types of appeals it can handle and remove members at will.
Federal Appeals Court
Immigrants may further appeal decisions made by the Board of Immigration Appeals to the US Courts of Appeals, the court one level below the Supreme Court.
Very few can afford to do so. Of the roughly 300,000 immigration cases heard each year, only 2 percent are appealed to a federal judge. In 2016, 5,240 immigration appeals were filed with the federal appellate courts.
On average, nationwide, just 8 percent of those appeals are granted. That either enables the immigrant to stay or sends the case back to the Board of Immigration Appeals to correct an error.
For some, the victory may come too late. Though immigrants cannot be deported while their case makes its way through immigration court, that protection ends once their appeal reaches the federal level.
Roughly half of all immigrants who will ultimately prevail in a federal appellate court risk being deported while their appeals are pending there.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.