The Hill
By Olga Byrne
March 10, 2016
Last
week, Judge Jack H. Weil, a senior Justice Department official
responsible for training other judges, suggested in a court deposition
that three-year olds can represent themselves in
immigration court. “I’ve taught immigration law literally to
3-year-olds and 4-year-olds,” Weil said.
This
is an alarming statement, to say the least. It’s even more alarming in
the context of a federal litigation in the Western District of
Washington where the government is arguing that
it can effectively protect children’s due process rights without
providing them a lawyer in deportation proceedings.
The
number of unaccompanied children in deportation proceedings has
increased in recent years with the arrival of thousands from Central
America. But only about half have lawyers even though
experts have long likened immigration law to the tax code in
complexity, with some calling it Kafkaesque.
The
impact of counsel on the likelihood of success is substantial.
According to government data analyzed by the Transactional Records
Access Clearinghouse, children who are unrepresented
are ordered deported 90 percent of the time. Those with a lawyer are
five times more likely to be granted relief by an immigration judge. A
study of asylum applications before the Asylum Office by researchers at
Georgetown University supports this conclusion,
finding that while legal counsel is the most significant factor in
asylum applications generally, it has an even greater impact in cases
involving younger applicants.
To
suggest that children’s due process rights—in proceedings that have
life or death consequences—can be protected by teaching a child the
complexities of immigration law, which will in turn
facilitate that child’s ability to represent herself, is absurd,
particularly coming from an immigration judge. Retired immigration judge
Eliza Klein says Weil’s words are “cause for genuine concern over what
lengths the Executive Office for Immigration Review
will go to abide by the President’s political and economic agenda of
prioritizing certain cases (people fleeing violence in Central America
and Mexico who have recently arrived at our borders seeking protection,
as they are legally entitled to do) over others
(people whose case may have been pending for years before the
immigration courts).”
Denying
lawyers to children is also bad policy, as legal counsel improves
systemic efficiency. Among children whose cases were filed in fiscal
year 2013, less than one percent of children
who had attorneys were ordered removed in absentia (for failing to
appear for their hearing).
Legal
representation also serves as an effective mechanism for identifying
other necessary services. Lawyers for immigrant children often discern
needs beyond the immediate legal case—such
as medical care, schooling, food assistance programs, and mental health
treatment—and make referrals to appropriate social services. The recent
trafficking case of eight unaccompanied children forced to work on an
egg farm in Ohio highlights the need for supportive
services.
On
February 11, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren
(D-Calif.) introduced the Fair Day in Court for Kids Act, which calls
for access to counsel for unaccompanied children and
other vulnerable individuals in the immigration court system. Rather
than trying to teach toddlers immigration law (not to mention trial
advocacy skills), Congress should pass this common sense measure.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment