Immigration Watch International (2): DOJ Proposes New Regulations to Expand Immigration Judges’ Authority

Wednesday, November 15, 2023

DOJ Proposes New Regulations to Expand Immigration Judges’ Authority

CIS Comment: Proposal is Both Unsupported by Law and Bad Policy

Washington, D.C. (November 14, 2023) – The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) submitted a comment opposing the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)’s proposal to expand immigration judges’ and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) authority to administratively close, terminate, or dismiss cases in removal proceedings. The proposal would also repeal numerous regulatory provisions issued under the Trump administration that reduced unnecessary delays in immigration court adjudications generally.

Elizabeth Jacobs, the Center’s director of regulatory affairs and policy and author of the comment, said, “The immigration courts’ overall backlog stands at more than 2.2 million cases, a 1060% increase since 2008. These extreme backlogs not only are eroding the credibility of our immigration system but the backlogs, themselves, encourage additional illegal immigration to the United States by ensuring that even those aliens who meet the Biden administration’s narrow enforcement priorities are, nevertheless, provided the opportunity to live in the United States for numerous years – longer than nearly all nonimmigrant visa categories’ periods of validity.”

CIS recommendations include:

DOJ should delay issuance of this proposal until it makes relevant information available to the public by updating data. Without such information, the public lacks the information necessary to properly analyze the impact the regulation will have on the immigration system or understand how these authorities will be used by EOIR adjudicators.

DOJ’s proposal to expand EOIR adjudicators’ authorities to administratively close, terminate, or dismiss cases in removal proceedings are overbroad and bad policy. Expanding these authorities will reduce credibility in the immigration system, increase the courts’ overall backlogs, and allow aliens without any lawful immigration status to continue to live in the United States indefinitely in “legal limbo” without a final disposition on their case.

Given the historic backlogs, EOIR should adopt simultaneous briefing schedules for both detained and non-detained cases. Expanding simultaneous briefing schedules to all cases will give the BIA another tool to address its historic backlog without undermining due process.

EOIR should impose firmer deadlines for background check requirements. As explained in detail in the comment, implementing additional measures to promote efficiency in the adjudication process is of utmost importance.

DOJ has an obligation to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires agencies to conduct an Environmental Assessment and an Environmental Impact Statement for major federal actions for which it is reasonably foreseeable that the human environment will be impacted. DOJ failed to cite an exception to NEPA when issuing this proposal.

https://cis.org/Regulatory-Comments/RE-Appellate-Procedures-and-Decision-Finality-Immigration-Proceedings

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Wednesday, November 15, 2023

DOJ Proposes New Regulations to Expand Immigration Judges’ Authority

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors