« Ind. Courts - "Lake County judges shy away from exclusive contracts in wake of corruption scandals" | Main | Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week »

Sunday, August 31, 2008

Courts - Still more on: DOJ moves to improve immigration judges, after months of criticism

This Aug. 10, 2006 ILB entry began: "Some readers may recall this Dec. 26, 2005 ILB entry, quoting from several stories critical of U.S. immigration judges. The 7th Circuit has not been reticent in criticizing the rulings of immigration judges ..." On April 21 of this year, Judge Richard A. Posner, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, gave a speech before the Chicago Bar Association, Administrative Law Judges Committee, titled "Judicial Review of Immigration Judges."

On July 28th the US Dept. of Justice issued a 146-page report: "An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General."

Charlie Savage, now of the NY Times, recently published an analysis of Justice Dept. data. His report begins:

WASHINGTON — Immigrants seeking asylum in the United States have been disproportionately rejected by judges whom the Bush administration chose using a conservative political litmus test, according to an analysis of Justice Department data.

The analysis suggests that the effects of a patronage-style selection process for immigration judges — used for three years before it was abandoned as illegal — are still being felt by scores of immigrants whose fates are determined by the judges installed in that period.

The data focuses on 16 judges who were vetted for political affiliation before being hired and have since ruled on at least 100 cases each.

Comparison of their records to others in the same cities shows that as a group they ruled against asylum-seekers significantly more often than colleagues who were appointed, as the law requires, under politically neutral rules.

Critics of the politicization of the immigration bench say it is not enough that in 2007 the department stopped using illegal hiring procedures. The fact that many of the politically selected judges remain in power, they say, continues to undermine the perceived fairness of hearings for immigrants fighting deportation.

The immigration court “is now the seat of individuals who were appointed illegally, and that means that in the minds of many people the court symbolizes illegality,” said Bruce Einhorn, a Pepperdine University law professor who was an immigration judge from 1990 until he retired last year.

Peter A. Carr, a Justice Department spokesman, wrote in an e-mailed response to questions, “The fact that the process was flawed does not mean that the immigration judges selected through that process are unfit to serve.” * * *

The Justice Department employs more than 200 immigration judges in more than 50 courts around the country. They conduct hearings for noncitizens asking not to be deported, including asylum-seekers who say they fear religious or political persecution.

Although called “judges,” the hearing examiners are not confirmed by the Senate for life; they are covered by federal civil-service laws, which stipulate that they must be hired on the basis of merit under politically neutral criteria. But in early 2004, political appointees took control of hiring the judges away from career professionals and essentially began treating the positions — which carry salaries of $104,300 to $158,500 — as patronage jobs. They screened out liberals and Democrats, while steering openings to White House-vetted “Bush loyalists” and other job-seekers vouched for by Republican political appointees.

According to the story the administration changed back "to a nonpolitical selection method handled by career professionals" in 2007 "after the Civil Division questions the legality of the process. ... But in the interim 31 immigration judges had been appointed by the flawed process." Who are these judges? See this NYT graphic

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 31, 2008 05:29 PM
Posted to Courts in general