Can Immigration Judges Really Be Fair?
Immigration is a topic on the minds and tongues of many of our country’s citizens and non-citizens alike. Sometimes it appears that almost every person in the country has an opinion about “immigration” and opinions about our United States immigration laws, but few have ever read the laws. Fewer still have ever seen or participated in an immigration court proceeding. You can explore this link: demetriadeslaw.com/european-citizenship-residency-services/ to get specialized assistance and legal support in your immigration issues.
Our immigration courts are very busy forums in which immigration judges make decisions concerning which non-citizens may be allowed to remain in the United States and which should be deported. Among their duties, immigration judges preside over asylum cases. The asylum provisions of our immigration law attempt to ensure humanitarian relief for victims of persecution.
Alternatively, the authorities courts of the USA really are a division of the United States of America Department of Justice called the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). They truly are administrative tribunals committed to hearing immigration problems, chiefly deportations. The Attorney General of the United States of America is the mind of their EOIR and appoints law judges into the courts.
This procedure of judicial critique has ever seemed to me to produce a conflict of interest. In the event the Attorney General appoints the law judges, then one wonders if these judges could really be just and unbiased to asylum seekers once they owe their occupation to the Attorney General? Oftentimes, I feel the answer is no; nevertheless they may not divorce that the political pressure that they face by the Attorney General by the results of these asylum cases.
For all those folks that have practiced at the courtroom system through time, we know you will find lots of issues with asylum adjudication. To start, the majority of the law judges attended out of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and also have a police background and mindset. Until recently, there’d been little training for judges.
More frequently than not, immigration judges refuse asylum claims. Such denials most usually demand non citizen applicants who don’t comprehend asylum law and aren’t represented by counsel.Since immigration judges have been appointed and serve at the pleasure of the Attorney General from the USA, the nation’s primary police officer, there isn’t any established term limitation on the consultation of their judges. As a way to avoid disappointing their supervisor, the Attorney General, judges could blatantly stay away from providing”a lot of” licenses of asylum.
The outcome of the case might depend more upon arbitrary factors such as the judge to whom the case is assigned, whether one has counsel, the ethnic and gender identity of the judge, or whether the immigration judge believes too many grants of asylum might displease the Attorney General and hurt his or her employment, instead of the facts of the particular claim.
It is this author’s position that our immigration courts be reconstituted by the Congress of the United States into an Article I court where the Judges are appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate.