Due Process and the Courts

Recent Features

  • Litigation

Stopping Policies Endangering Immigration Attorneys, Clients, and the Public During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The Council filed a lawsuit to close the immigration courts and ensure due process.

  • Blog

‘Your Client Is Going Bye-Bye.’ Investigation Details Immigration Judges’ Cruel Behavior in El Paso Court

The complaint outlines systemic due process concerns around unprofessional behavior by immigration judges and troubling court practices in El Paso.

  • Special Report

Two Systems of Justice: How the Immigration System Falls Short of American Ideals of Justice

This special report lays out the the incongruency between America's criminal justice system and its immigration justice system, and provides recommendations for how these problems could be fixed.

All Due Process and the Courts Content

  • FOIA

Access to Counsel Before ICE FOIA

The Council filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to compel the release of records relating to noncitizens’ access to counsel before Immigration and Customs Enforement...

  • FOIA

Video Hearings in Immigration Court FOIA

Beginning in the mid-1990s, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) began using video hearing equipment in immigration courts across the country. As a result, frequently a noncitizen facing removal is deprived of the opportunity to appear in person before an immigration judge. Video hearings are more common where a noncitizen is detained, though many non-detained individuals are subjected to video hearings as well. EOIR uses video hearings for both preliminary hearings (“master calendar hearings”) and merits hearings (“individual hearings”). In February 2012, the American Immigration Council submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to EOIR asking for records related to video teleconferencing (VTC). EOIR produced two sets of records.
  • Advocacy

Comments on EOIR’s proposed rule on streamlining BIA cases (Aug. 18, 2008)

Addressing the BIA's affirmance without opinion process, three-member panel decisions, and precedent decisions, as well as exhaustion of administrative remedies and the scope of administrative review
  • Advocacy

Providing a Safety Valve: The Need for Greater Discretion in Immigration Decision Making (Jun. 6, 2013)

Discussing efforts in S. 744, “The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act,” to restore a measure of discretion and flexibility to the immigration system.
  • Advocacy

Letter to EOIR recommending possible steps to take to protect the right to effective assistance of counsel (Nov. 12, 2009)

In November 2009, the American Immigration Council sent a letter to the Executive Office for Immigration Review recommending steps the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals can take to protect the right to effective assistance of counsel and help ensure that noncitizens in removal proceedings are afforded a fair hearing.
  • Advocacy

Amicus Letter, urging reconsideration of Compean I (Feb. 6, 2009)

Urging Attorney General Holder to vacate Matter of Compean, 24 I & N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009), which he later did in Matter of Compean, 25 I&N Dec. 1 (A.G. 2009)
  • Advocacy

Petition for Rulemaking to Amend Regulations Governing Motions to Reopen and Reconsider Removal Proceedings for Noncitizens Who Depart the United States (submitted Aug. 6, 2010)

The Council submitted a Petition for Rulemaking to the Department of Justice and the Executive Office for Immigration Review, urging the Department to rescind the regulation barring post-departure motions to reopen.
  • Advocacy

Petition Comments to the DOJ/EOIR regarding the “Retrospective Regulatory Review” (submitted Nov. 27, 2012)

The Council, in collaboration with AILA, inter alia, urged EOIR to amend regulations pertaining to telephonic and video hearings (see page 4).
  • Advocacy

Comments on the Immigration Adjudication Draft Report by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) (submitted Feb. 13, 2012)

The Council commented on several issues addressed by the draft report, including video hearings (see page 4). ACUS’s draft report and the final recommendations, included that EOIR should consider more systemic assessments of the use of video hearings.
  • Advocacy

Council and AILA comments to the DOJ/EOIR regarding the “Retrospective Regulatory Review” (Nov. 27, 2012)

Pertaining to regulations on motions to reopen, stays of removal, bond hearings, telephonic and video hearings, filing and service of documents and decisions, and stipulated removal orders.

Most Read

  • Publications
  • Blog Posts
  • Past:
  • Trending