Attorney
General Announces Reforms for Immigration Courts and Board of Immigration
Appeals
But Is There Hope for Real Change?
Jane had been a political prisoner in her native Uganda. While
imprisoned, she had been raped and beaten by government soldiers,
and her husband had been murdered. She managed to escape from Uganda—fleeing
for her life—and came to the U.S. seeking asylum. However,
her struggle for justice would continue even as she entered Immigration
Judge Thomas Ragno’s Boston courtroom in June 2003.
The Boston
Globe, among other sources, reported that according to an
affidavit from Jane’s doctor at the Boston Medical
Center, Judge Ragno commanded “Jane, come here…Me
Tarzan” in a loud, mocking voice, and then proceeded to talk
about how funny the Tarzan cartoons were. Later in the same hearing,
Judge Ragno used the courtroom speakerphone to check the weather
on the Massachusetts Cape in order to make his weekend plans, and
then announced to the courtroom that he was looking for a new condo
because his kids did not like his current one.
Jane’s case
is not the first incident of egregious behavior by Ragno, who has
been an immigration judge since 1973; the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) has criticized Judge Ragno in several different opinions.
After the “Tarzan” incident, Judge
Ragno was placed on administrative paid leave, but was later returned
to the bench. Judge Ragno may represent one of the worst examples
of what is generally acknowledged as a widespread problem of abusive
behavior by IJs.
In CGRS’s Summer 2006 Newsletter, we reported
that Attorney General (AG) Alberto Gonzales had recently ordered
a broad investigation into complaints about IJs and the BIA from
across the country, and expressed concern about the failure of
some judges to treat individuals appearing before them with “appropriate
respect and consideration.” In recent years there have been
more than two dozen federal court decisions sharply criticizing
IJs, as well as the BIA, for their handling of immigration cases.
The AG’s announcement of an investigation followed on the
heels of an article in The New York Times which focused on the
problems plaguing the nation’s immigration courts.
The AG’s
promised investigation began in January 2006 and ended in August,
with the announcement of twenty-two new measures intended to improve
the performance and quality of work of the immigration court system
as a whole. Among the reforms announced by the AG is the requirement
that IJs appointed after December 31, 2006 pass an immigration
law exam and, regardless of their date of appointment, all IJs
will now be subject to periodic performance evaluations. The reforms
also provide for the drafting of a new code of conduct for IJs
and BIA members. In addition, as part of these reforms, the Executive
Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees the nation’s
IJs, will review the process by which it handles complaints against
judges.
The AG’s reforms
recommend increasing available resources for the system as a whole,
including the hiring of additional judges and law clerks to assist
them; the budget also provides for the addition of four new Board
members and staff attorneys to support their work. This addition
of four BIA members comes four years after then-Attorney General
John Ashcroft instituted so-called “streamlining” measures
in which he decimated the Board, reducing its size from 23 to 11
members, and allowing for most cases to be decided by a single
judge without opinion.
Although these reforms appear to be a step
in the right direction, it remains to be seen whether or not they
will lead to real change for those seeking protection—and
justice—in the U.S.
For example, the DOJ’s commitment to establishing performance
evaluations to periodically review the work of each IJ and BIA
member is a positive development. But many key questions remain
unanswered. Who will conduct these evaluations? What criteria will
they use? And will the process be transparent when it comes to
the standards to which these adjudicators will be held? Similar
questions may be asked about the complaint process, which historically,
has been frustratingly opaque. Many immigration attorneys who have
attempted to file complaints over the years have reported to CGRS
that they have rarely received even the most cursory of responses,
and that they were given little or no information about what action
might have been taken by the government. One would hope that any
new measures applicable to the complaint process would address
these long-standing problems.
Ironically, one of the primary catalysts
for these proposed reforms was former AG Ashcroft’s streamlining
procedures, referred to above. As a consequence of allowing the
BIA to decide cases without written opinions, the federal courts
began to review more cases on the basis of the IJ’s decisions
alone—and
in many cases, they did not like what they saw.
The heightened
attention to the nation’s immigration courts
is a good thing, as is the announcement that the DOJ will seek
to implement a series of measures designed to improve the performance
of IJs and the BIA. Those who care about refugees and immigrants
must keep the focus on this issue, and continue to push for greater
transparency and accountability in the system as a whole. It is
only through sustained attention and advocacy that in the future,
asylum seekers like Jane won’t be further traumatized in
their pursuit of safe haven. |
