crimmigration.com

The intersection of criminal law and immigration law

  • Home
  • About César
  • Articles
  • Books
  • Book Tour
  • Talks & Media

Appointed Counsel & Due Process in S. 744: The NYC Bar Speaks Out

Mark Noferi

First, I’d like to thank Cesar for allowing me to guest blog this week. It’s been great to be involved as crImmigration has grown into the Internet’s most thoughtful analysis of crime and immigration issues. (You can also read my prior crImmigration posts on American Bar Association civil immigration detention standards, Moncrieffe v. Holder, and S. 744’s appointed counsel and detention provisions).

Today, I’ll start by summarizing recent amendments to appointed counsel and due process provisions in S. 744—largely under the radar in the reform debate (though I recently addressed this in an article on Slate)—and highlight the New York City Bar Association immigration committee’s advocacy work for stronger protections. Tomorrow, I’ll move on to detention-related provisions. Later this week, my co-author Robert Koulish and I will post on Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE’s) new risk assessment tool, which appears central to future detention decisions no matter what the outcome of reform. Although I summarize here some of City Bar’s positions, I speak here in my personal capacity.

***

The Senate Gang of Eight’s immigration reform bill, a.k.a. S. 744, contained in its 844 pages some significant advances to increase due process and reduce detention, as César and myself previously summarized. The New York City Bar Association, through its Immigration and Nationality Law Committee, issued two strong, detailed letters on April 24 recognizing these advances, but proposing further reforms to expand appointed counsel, reduce detention, and help our immigration system better reflect American values. (The City Bar’s public statement is also here.)

Meanwhile, of the over 300 amendments Senators proposed on May 7, nine would together largely reverse S. 744’s advances on due process and detention: Sen. Charles Grassley’s (R-IA) Amendments 39, 40, 41, 42, 47, 48, 51, and 53 and Sen. Jeff Sessions’ (R-AL) Amendment 12. City Bar then provided detailed analyses of these nine amendments, filling an important gap in the public debate, and its members are meeting with House and Senate staffers in Washington, D.C. The Senate Judiciary Committee began to consider amendments on May 9, and will continue “marking up” the bill today. These detention and due process amendments are expected to be considered by May 24, along with the rest of S. 744’s Title III addressing interior enforcement.

I’ve been proud to join these City Bar efforts, led by Professor Lenni Benson of New York Law School, who chairs the Immigration Committee with indefatigable effort and a wealth of knowledge. (Most recently, Prof. Benson co-authored a report by the Administrative Conference of the United States that concluded additional representation would help unclog overwhelmed immigration courts.) Special thanks also go out to Wilmer Hale’s pro bono team of Nicole Feit, Sanhita Sen, Ellie Martin, and Jonathan Pressman for their unflagging advocacy, writing, research, and support. Comments and suggestions would be welcome, as we continue our advocacy.

I’ll provide brief summaries here of this advocacy and recent amendments—today, on appointed counsel and due process provisions, and tomorrow, on detention-related concerns.

Appointed Counsel

S. 744 took a groundbreaking step by voluntarily providing appointed counsel to immigrants in removal proceedings—albeit only to children, the mentally ill, and the vaguely-described “particularly vulnerable when compared to other aliens in removal proceedings.” (Sec. 3502(c), p. 569). Few disagree with counsel to the first two groups. Indeed, shortly after S. 744, DHS and EOIR agreed to provide appointed counsel to the mentally ill in response to federal court litigation. But the third category raises additional questions. Who exactly is a “particularly vulnerable” immigrant in removal proceedings? Asylum seekers? Detainees, 84 percent of whom lack lawyers? Perhaps more to the point, who is not “particularly vulnerable” in removal proceedings that by definition force an individual to argue—under Byzantine statutes, against a Government lawyer, often in a foreign language—whether he or she stays in America? Indeed, conducting ad hoc, case-by-case reviews of whether one is “particularly vulnerable” would itself likely exacerbate immigration court backlogs. (See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 50-51 (1981) (Blackmun, J., dissenting).)

City Bar’s letter recognized S. 744’s advance, but advocated a more inclusive approach—free counsel to all indigents in removal proceedings (including expedited removal), as well as those bringing humanitarian claims such as asylum, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”) or the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”).

Many supporting arguments may be familiar to this blog’s readers (or those of my article that advocated for appointed counsel to immigrant detainees). Deportation, although technically “civil,” involves much higher stakes than the typical civil proceeding-banishment from family, friends, livelihood, and property, or “all that makes life worth living.” For these reasons, the right to counsel in criminal cases now includes immigration advice, after Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), since deportation can be “the most important part” of a criminal conviction. Immigration proceedings also force a uniquely vulnerable population to litigate uniquely complicated issues. As Justice Alito stated in Padilla, “[N]othing is ever simple with immigration law.” And detention exacerbates the situation further, by depriving liberty, separating detainees from families, and frustrating any ability to meaningfully litigate a case.

Two particular arguments in City Bar’s letter warrant mention here. First, “there is no citizenship test for counsel in America.” We may forget this, since immigration proceedings are supposed to only involve non-citizens (theoretically). But when the U.S. or its states provide counsel, whether in criminal, civil, or military proceedings, we provide it to citizens and non-citizens alike. Put another way, the familiar Miranda words “You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you” do not include “only if you are a citizen.” We do this because procedural safeguards reflect American values of fairness and due process, regardless of the defendant’s identity.

And the U.S. and its states already provide counsel in many high-stakes proceedings, whether criminal or civil. For example, 44 states now provide counsel in civil proceedings to terminate parental rights. Deportation too frequently results in the same outcome. So to provide counsel in immigration proceedings, like many other high stakes proceedings involving loss of liberty or children, would not be so groundbreaking. Rather, a greater break from tradition would be to leave immigrants without lawyers, thus imposing a de facto citizenship test for appointed counsel.

Secondly, based on Prof. Benson’s report, the City Bar letter argued that “providing counsel to indigent non-citizens saves the government money by 1) preventing unnecessary court proceedings, 2) reducing the amount of time non-citizens spend in detention, and 3) relieving the burden of government support to disrupted families.” Existing Legal Orientation Programs (“LOPs”) for detainees, in which advice is provided without full representation, have shortened case processing times for detainees by 13 days on average. Full representation would likely increase efficiency even further. City Bar recommended the creation of an independent immigration defender’s office, modeled on the federal public defender office, with direct granting authority that would provide the Executive Office for Immigration Review with an independent stream of income. (On that point, City Bar cited UCLA Law Professor Ingrid Eagly’s helpful new Yale Law Journal article Gideon’s Migration).

Unfortunately, no Senators have (yet) proposed amendments for a more universal right to counsel, even though counsel for immigrants draws strong, bipartisan support. In a recent poll, three-quarters of Americans, and two-thirds of Republicans, support ensuring that “immigrants can have legal representation if they face deportation.” Reasons for Senatorial reticence are unclear.

Meanwhile, several amendments scaled back S. 744’s provision of the right to counsel, and other due process improvements:

Grassley Amendment 40: This amendment proposes to make appointed counsel for children and the mentally ill discretionary, rather than mandatory. It also strikes the “particularly vulnerable” language altogether, as well as language providing funding for lawyers from the new immigration reform trust fund.

This Amendment makes little sense. As City Bar said, “There is no justification to force any children or mentally ill to defend themselves in court.” Moreover, case-by-case hearings to determine which children or mentally ill can purportedly defend themselves would be “inefficient, unfair, and useless without funding.” At risk of sarcasm, will U.S. immigration judges really hold hearings to determine how old a child must be before he or she can “play lawyer”? Eight? Ten? And at the end of the day, if immigration judges know that counsel won’t be paid for, immigration judges won’t appoint counsel. City Bar opposed this amendment.

Grassley Amendment 41: This Amendment eliminates the new proposed Office of Legal Access Programs, which would oversee the Legal Orientation Program (LOP). As noted, the LOP has made immigration proceedings fairer and more efficient for detainees, with benefits outweighing its costs. As City Bar pointed out, the Office of Legal Access Programs would institutionalize the LOP, and give it LOP independence from immigration courts, which avoids any appearance of impropriety. It is unclear what purpose this Amendment would serve, except to prevent the institutionalization of legal advice. Although City Bar recommended that Congress should go further than the LOP and provide universal appointed counsel, City Bar opposed this amendment.

Grassley Amendments 39, 48: These Amendments require the General Accounting Office (GAO) or Comptroller General to conduct a study of immigration courts’ workload before increasing immigration courts’ staff and resources, as S. 744 provides for.

These Amendments appear to be delaying tactics. The reports documenting extremely overloaded immigration courts have already been written—by Prof. Benson and the bipartisan Administrative Conference of the United States (137 pages); by the bipartisan American Bar Association (282 pages); and by the Appleseed Foundation (108 pages). As the Appleseed Foundation wrote, “Immigration Courts are so backlogged that in some places half-day hearings are being scheduled for 2015.” And when “DHS admits that its attorneys are ‘dodging bullets’ and a sitting judge testifies before Congress that her court system is broken,” it may be time for a “transformative fix,” let alone additional resources and funding. But additional resources and funding, without delay, would only help. City Bar opposed this amendment.

Grassley Amendment 42: This Amendment would keep in place procedures allowing for single-judge decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and overturn S. 744’s proposal to return to the three-judge system.

In the 2000s, the Bush Administration allowed the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to decide appeals in summary fashion by a single judge. Federal Circuit immigration appeals then exploded fivefold. Federal judges such as Second Circuit Judge Robert Katzmann and Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner criticized the poor quality of decisionmaking in immigration courts. The Second and Ninth Circuits hired extra staff attorneys, at extra costs, just to handle immigration cases. And as Prof. Benson related, the federal government’s Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL) appeals unit still seeks to remand, on its own initiative, one-quarter of federal Circuit appeals from the BIA because the records below are poor.

Returning to the three-judge system, as S. 744 proposes, is a common-sense move. Conversely, if enacted, Amendment 42 would instead reduce fairness, increase inefficiency, and increase the workloads on federal circuit courts, ultimately increasing costs to taxpayers and slowing down the immigration process for all. City Bar opposed this amendment. (See generally here Robert Katzmann, The Legal Profession and the Unmet Needs of the Immigrant Poor, 21 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 3, 5-6 (2008), citing e.g. Lenni B. Benson, Making Paper Dolls: How Restrictions on Judicial Review and the Administrative Process Increase Immigration Cases in the Federal Courts, 51 NYLS L. Rev. 37 (2006).)

Tomorrow, I’ll explore the detention-related amendments to S. 744.

Mark Noferi teaches immigrants’ rights and legal writing at Brooklyn Law School.

  • Share via Facebook
  • Share via LinkedIn
  • Share via Twitter
  • Share via Email

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Posted by César on May 14, 2013 on 9:00 am 29 Comments
Filed Under: commentaries, Congress, guest blogger, proposed legislation, right to counsel

Comments

  1. ZzJQvRXY says

    May 17, 2013 at 11:59 am

    ZzJQvRXY

    crImmigration.com: Appointed Counsel & Due Process in S. 744: The NYC Bar Speaks Out

    Reply
  2. pLVQORpz says

    May 17, 2013 at 11:59 am

    pLVQORpz

    crImmigration.com: Appointed Counsel & Due Process in S. 744: The NYC Bar Speaks Out

    Reply
  3. HfIwljWv says

    May 17, 2013 at 11:59 am

    HfIwljWv

    crImmigration.com: Appointed Counsel & Due Process in S. 744: The NYC Bar Speaks Out

    Reply
  4. FDSLfxpc says

    May 17, 2013 at 11:59 am

    FDSLfxpc

    crImmigration.com: Appointed Counsel & Due Process in S. 744: The NYC Bar Speaks Out

    Reply
  5. Tkaydofl says

    May 17, 2013 at 11:59 am

    Tkaydofl

    crImmigration.com: Appointed Counsel & Due Process in S. 744: The NYC Bar Speaks Out

    Reply
  6. ujWxfnyl says

    May 17, 2013 at 11:59 am

    ujWxfnyl

    crImmigration.com: Appointed Counsel & Due Process in S. 744: The NYC Bar Speaks Out

    Reply
  7. XTZwjLOx says

    May 17, 2013 at 12:00 pm

    XTZwjLOx

    crImmigration.com: Appointed Counsel & Due Process in S. 744: The NYC Bar Speaks Out

    Reply
  8. zjxIkFVl says

    May 17, 2013 at 12:00 pm

    zjxIkFVl

    crImmigration.com: Appointed Counsel & Due Process in S. 744: The NYC Bar Speaks Out

    Reply
  9. GChlMBtb says

    May 17, 2013 at 12:00 pm

    GChlMBtb

    crImmigration.com: Appointed Counsel & Due Process in S. 744: The NYC Bar Speaks Out

    Reply
  10. yocBCier says

    May 17, 2013 at 12:00 pm

    yocBCier

    crImmigration.com: Appointed Counsel & Due Process in S. 744: The NYC Bar Speaks Out

    Reply
  11. AnUObwMh says

    May 17, 2013 at 12:00 pm

    AnUObwMh

    crImmigration.com: Appointed Counsel & Due Process in S. 744: The NYC Bar Speaks Out

    Reply
  12. UEqNZcsR says

    May 17, 2013 at 12:00 pm

    UEqNZcsR

    crImmigration.com: Appointed Counsel & Due Process in S. 744: The NYC Bar Speaks Out

    Reply
  13. IyWtogGU says

    May 17, 2013 at 12:02 pm

    IyWtogGU

    crImmigration.com: Appointed Counsel & Due Process in S. 744: The NYC Bar Speaks Out

    Reply
  14. wHkovqdz says

    May 17, 2013 at 12:03 pm

    wHkovqdz

    crImmigration.com: Appointed Counsel & Due Process in S. 744: The NYC Bar Speaks Out

    Reply
  15. air max bw says

    May 19, 2013 at 6:24 pm

    air max bw

    un ingénieur électronique qui aura 53 ans en avril? un ingénieur vetement juventus qui aura 53 ans en avril. Les deux suivants se ressemblent et amènent les deux joueurs au jeu décisif, Selon les premiers maillot psg decathlon de lenquête, se présente comme la plus grande version du Galaxy Note. Le camarade auteur du coup de poing qui air max bw fait chuter contre un mur, décrochera lOscar du meilleur acteur dans un second r?le lors de la cérémonie du 24 février?

    Reply
  16. CHEap OaklEy Flak JackEt says

    May 26, 2013 at 4:37 am

    CHEap OaklEy Flak JackEt

    I constantly spent my half an hour to read this weblog content everyday along with a mug of coffee.

    Reply
  17. lunette de soleil ray ban says

    June 4, 2013 at 9:18 pm

    lunette de soleil ray ban

    I’m really impressed with your writing skills as well as with the layout on your blog. Is this a paid theme or did you customize it yourself? Either way keep up the nice quality writing, it is rare to see a nice blog like this one nowadays..

    Reply
  18. ralph lauren pas cher says

    June 11, 2013 at 10:04 pm

    ralph lauren pas cher

    Thank you for your article.Thanks Again. Awesome.

    Reply
  19. chaussure ralph lauren says

    June 12, 2013 at 4:31 am

    chaussure ralph lauren

    I’ve been browsing on-line more than three hours lately, yet I never found any fascinating article like yours. It is pretty worth enough for me. In my opinion, if all webmasters and bloggers made good content as you probably did, the web might be a lot more helpful than ever before.

    Reply
  20. foakley says

    July 9, 2013 at 12:07 pm

    foakley

    One more thing that I would like to share at this place is that, whatsoever you are using free blogging service except if you don抰 update your web site on daily basis then it no more importance.

    Reply
  21. OAkley FuEl Cell says

    July 9, 2013 at 8:57 pm

    OAkley FuEl Cell

    Hi, it’s understandable article along with this YouTube video; I can抰 think that one can not understand this easy piece of writing having with video demo.

    Reply
  22. Fake Oakley Jawbone says

    July 11, 2013 at 8:40 pm

    Fake Oakley Jawbone

    Oh! Wow its actually a comic and jockey YouTube video posted here. thanks for sharing it.

    Reply
  23. sac à main longchamp,Sac à Main Longchamp ,longshamp says

    July 12, 2013 at 9:22 pm

    sac à main longchamp,Sac à Main Longchamp ,longshamp

    I am sure this article has touched all the internet people, its really really good paragraph on building up new webpage.

    Reply
  24. Fake Oakley Holbrook says

    July 14, 2013 at 7:48 am

    Fake Oakley Holbrook

    Hi friends, fastidious article and nice urging commented at this place, I am truly enjoying by these.

    Reply
  25. Replica Oakley X Squared says

    July 18, 2013 at 8:53 pm

    Replica Oakley X Squared

    What a video it is! Really remarkable and pleasant quality, please upload more video clips having such pleasant quality. Thanks.

    Reply
  26. Cheap Oakley Sunglasses says

    July 27, 2013 at 12:29 pm

    Cheap Oakley Sunglasses

    crImmigration.com: Appointed Counsel & Due Process in S. 744: The NYC Bar Speaks Out

    Reply
  27. Oakley Eyepatch Sunglasses says

    July 31, 2013 at 12:53 am

    Oakley Eyepatch Sunglasses

    crImmigration.com: Appointed Counsel & Due Process in S. 744: The NYC Bar Speaks Out

    Reply
  28. Replica Oakley Sunglasses says

    August 2, 2013 at 6:32 am

    Replica Oakley Sunglasses

    crImmigration.com: Appointed Counsel & Due Process in S. 744: The NYC Bar Speaks Out

    Reply
  29. garcinia cambogia extract says

    March 31, 2014 at 9:18 pm

    garcinia cambogia extract

    crImmigration.com: Appointed Counsel & Due Process in S. 744: The NYC Bar Speaks Out

    Reply

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe


Recent Posts

  • Biden’s Migration Policy Options
  • Migrating to Prison, one year later
  • With Biden returning to White House, private prison stock falls
  • New York Review of Books
  • Justice Dept pushes Supreme Court to Imperil Families
  • Fund Immigrant Defense, Promote Justice

Search

Social Media

Blawg 100 Honoree

The information contained on these pages must not be considered legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. This work by www.crImmigration.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.