DOJ Tells Immigration Judges to Deny More Asylum Cases Without Holding Hearings
Critics decried the directive as another example of the Trump White House denying immigrants their due process rights.
New guidance from the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees the immigration court system, calls for immigration judges to expedite reviews for asylum seekers by means that legal experts say would violate their due process rights.
The new directive, authored by EOIR acting director Sirce Owen and issued on April 11, tells judges to take “all appropriate action to immediately resolve cases on their dockets that do not have viable legal paths for relief or protection from removal.” It further states that caselaw and federal statutes allow for such a move, permitting judges to “consider pretermission of a legally deficient asylum application.”
In short, the memo from Owen directs judges to predetermine whether or not an asylum seeker’s case is viable — essentially denying people of their right to prove that their case merits a hearing.
Owen justified the new order by citing the backlog of immigration cases that judges are currently dealing with. While all sides of the immigration debate agree that the backlog is a problem, the new order is likely, in reality, an attempt to impose even more barriers to immigration. Indeed, earlier this year, the administration fired around 20 immigration judges despite the backlog of cases.
Immigration judges are technically part of the executive branch of government, allowing the DOJ to regulate how they function to some degree. Legal experts are skeptical of the directive, however, noting that it appears to be yet another attempt by the Trump administration to deny immigrants their due process rights.
“Immigration judges must use independent judgment, and under the statutes and existing regulations, they must allow a person to submit, supplement and testify to the facts supporting their request for asylum,” Lenni Benson, a professor at New York Law School who specializes in immigration, told The New York Times.
“Many asylum seekers are not legally trained and are not provided with counsel. This policy risks depriving them of their right to a fair hearing,” immigration attorney Jared Jaskot said.
Shayna Kessler, who serves as director of the Advancing Universal Representation initiative at the Vera Institute of Justice, also panned the new directive from EOIR.
“This directive has nothing to do with efficiency — it’s about slamming shut the courthouse door on people who have the right to seek asylum and a fair day in court,” Kessler said in a statement, adding that the policy, if widely implemented, “will separate families and funnel people into costly and inhumane detention with no opportunity to defend themselves.”
“The immigration court backlog is a real problem,” Kessler acknowledged, “but this is not the solution. To effectively address the backlog and uphold the right to due process, Congress must invest in the immigration adjudication system, provide legal representation to those navigating it, and create a meaningful pathway to citizenship for those who call this country home.”