Table of Contents

Page No.

**I. Overview 1**

**II Summary of Program Changes 6**

**III. Appropriations Language and Analysis of Appropriations Language
7**

IV\. Decision Unit Justification 8

A. Executive Office for Immigration Review

1\. Program Description

2\. Performance Tables

3\. Performance, Resources, and Strategies

a.  Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes

b.  Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes

c.  Results of Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews

B. Office of the Pardon Attorney

1\. Program Description

2\. Performance Tables

3\. Performance, Resources, and Strategies

a.  Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes

b.  Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes

c.  Results of Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews

**V.** **Program Increase by Item 19**

VII\. E-Gov Initiatives 24

VI\. Exhibits

A.  Organizational Chart

> B. Summary of Requirements
>
> C. Program Increases by Decision Unit

D.  Resources by DOJ Strategic Goal/Objective

E.  Justification for Base Adjustments

F.  Crosswalk of 2007 Availability

G.  Crosswalk of 2008 Availability

H.  Summary of Reimbursable Resources

I.  Detail of Permanent Positions by Category

J.  Financial Analysis of Program Increases/Offsets

K.  Summary of Requirements by Grade

L.  Summary of Requirements by Object Class

M.  Status of Congressionally Requested Studies, Reports, and
    Evaluations "Not Applicable"

**I.** **Overview for Administrative Review and Appeals**

The fight against terrorism is the first and overriding priority of the
Department of Justice and the Administration. A key component of this
effort is the securing of our Nation's borders and the repair of the
immigration system as a whole. More than ever, protecting America
requires a multifaceted strategy which must include the effective
coordination of investigative, enforcement, legal and adjudicative
resources, both within the Department and in concert with other
agencies. The application and enforcement of our immigration laws
remains a critical element of this national effort.

**1. Introduction**

On March 1, 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service was
abolished, its functions transferred to the new Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). However, the Attorney General retained significant
authority over the interpretation and application of the Nation's
immigration laws. As such, the immigration adjudications and litigation
functions remained within the Department of Justice.

The Department's adjudication of immigration cases is performed by the
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

The Administrative Review and Appeals FY 2009 request is \$263,791,000
and 1,439 FTE, and offset by \$4,000,000 to be transferred annually from
Immigration Examination Fees at the Department of Homeland Security. The
request includes \$261,404,000 and 1,424 FTE for EOIR and \$2,387,000
and 15 FTE for the Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA).

The EOIR request includes a program increase of \$10,000,000 tied to the
Southwest Border Enforcement Initiative in support of mission-critical
and top priority information technology initiatives. The initiative
forms two key components of EOIR's IT eWorld project, a multi-year,
multi-phased effort to upgrade and modernize aging, obsolete IT systems
and to transition EOIR from paper to electronic documents for its
official records.

The request includes implementation and maintenance of Digital Audio
Recording (DAR) in all immigration courts nationwide. This project was
directed by the Attorney General as part of his Comprehensive Review of
EOIR, completed in 2006.

The balance of the program increase supports the priority Immigration
Review Information Exchange System (IRIES), the system through which
EOIR will share mission-critical information with its external business
partners, most notably the Department of Homeland Security and the DOJ's
Civil Division.

The Southwest Border Enforcement Initiative is explained in much greater
detail on pages 19 through 22 of this submission. It is important to
note that, to date, EOIR has supported the initial development of the
critical Southwest Border Enforcement Initiative IT eWorld project and
its major components (DAR, IRIES and the Case Access System -- a
web-based electronic case management system which will consolidate
EOIR's stove-piped legacy databases) through the reallocation of base
resources. To minimize the impact on base operations, EOIR has had to
implement a multi-year development and phase-in strategy for this
critical initiative. By 2009, diverting base resources to IT projects
will no longer be possible.

EOIR has 54 immigration courts located nationwide, the Board of
Immigration Appeals, which hears appeals of immigration judge decisions
and certain decisions of officers of the DHS, and an administrative law
judge function, which adjudicates other immigration-related matters.

While due process and independent decision-making remain the bedrock of
any judicial or quasi-judicial function, EOIR cannot and does not
operate in a vacuum. The volume, nature, and geographic concentration of
DOJ/EOIR immigration caseload relates to government-wide

immigration enforcement efforts. The coordination with DHS of
programmatic increases and resource allocation remains EOIR's top
challenge and is a critical goal for the Administration, the Department
of Justice and the DHS.

EOIR has been reviewed under the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
process in 2006 for budget year 2008. EOIR received a score of
"Moderately Effective." An improvement plan has been put in place to
undertake over the next several years. The first action item from the
improvement plan was completed when EOIR reassessed its targets to
ensure that they were suitably ambitious. Although most measures were
determined to be suitably ambitious, the BIA did shorten the time frame
for completion of detained cases to 150 days. The second action item,
which concerns the implementation of digital audio recording (DAR), is
well underway. During FY 2007, EOIR designed, developed, and piloted the
DAR system. The pilot and its assessment will be conducted during FY
2008, with development of the second phase of the project also
occurring. The third action item is expanded training for immigration
judges and Board legal staff, which began in FY 2007 with the revision
of numerous legal references materials. Training will be further
implemented in FY 2008. EOIR will be reviewed again in 2011.

The Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA) receives and reviews all
petitions for executive clemency, conducts the necessary investigations
and prepares recommendations to the President for action. OPA provides
guidance for the conduct of clemency proceedings and the standards for
decisions. OPA confers with individual clemency applicants, their
representatives, public groups, members of Congress, various federal,
state, and local officials and others in connection with the disposition
of clemency proceedings.

2\. Background

Immigration Courts and Coordination with DHS Enforcement Increases

EOIR's immigration courts represent the Department's front-line presence
with respect to the application of immigration law. Cases are received
on-site, across the Nation, directly from DHS enforcement personnel. As
such, the coordination of resource allocation between DOJ/EOIR and DHS
is a critical issue.

The strategies employed by EOIR to respond to this issue are twofold.
First, on an on-going basis, EOIR's Office of the Chief Immigration
Judge monitors caseload volume, trends and geographic concentration and
adjusts resource allocation accordingly. This is done by modifying local
dockets, adjusting detail assignments (most immigration judges "circuit
ride" on both a regular and ad hoc basis), and permanently reassigning
judge and staff positions to higher volume courts. This strategy
involves close national and local coordination with DHS immigration
enforcement personnel.

EOIR's second strategy involves coordinating workload projections with
DHS**.** Within DHS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) include the majority of immigration
enforcement programs, which generate immigration court caseload.

ICE includes immigration detention and removal, intelligence,
investigations, legal proceedings and criminal alien programs. CBP
includes the Border Patrol and inspections programs. Increases to these
DHS programs have had and will have an immediate and profound effect
upon DOJ/EOIR adjudications. As a key player in the government's
immigration initiatives, EOIR's ability to adjudicate increasing
caseload in a timely fashion allows the larger system to operate more
efficiently, including the effective utilization of increased detention
bed spaces and the DHS resources devoted to criminal and non-criminal
removal programs.

For years, EOIR's top funding priority has been to attain the ability to
adjudicate the record numbers of cases already received as a result of
DHS enforcement increases, and to begin to meet the adjudications
challenges resulting from DHS increases already funded and those
requested by DHS for 2008 and 2009.

To illustrate the unprecedented expansion of DHS enforcement efforts and
the critical need to implement IT improvements in order to facilitate
inter-agency case processing and data sharing, the following brief
recent history of DHS enforcement increases is presented.

DHS received \$500 million in enforcement-related increases through the
Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2003, additional
resources in FY 2004 and FY 2005, over \$600 million through the Wartime
Supplemental of 2005, \$1.2 billion through the 2006 Wartime
Supplemental, and hundreds of millions more through the regular
appropriations process.

In addition, DHS received in 2007 unprecedented increases for precisely
the enforcement programs which generate EOIR caseload. These increases
include:

-   6,700 additional detention beds (this is in addition to 2,300 new
    beds added during FY 2006).

-   1,360 new positions in ICE alone, including hundreds of special
    agents to enhance worksite enforcement, fugitive operations and
    other enforcement programs.

-   2, 500 additional Border Patrol Agents.

In addition to the above, the President's new Secure Border Initiative
will expedite the expansion cited above, add an additional 3,500 Border
Patrol agents by the end of CY 2008 (bringing the total increase from
2007 through 2008 to 6,000 new agents), and include force multipliers
such as technology, infrastructure and thousands of National Guardsmen.
For 2009, DHS will continue a multi-year expansion of the Border Patrol,
detention facility bedspaces, the Criminal Alien Program and other
programs, which, at a minimum, will keep EOIR case receipts at record
levels.

EOIR and DOJ Strategic Goals

EOIR has been included in the DOJ Strategic Plan for FY 2007 - FY 2012
under Strategic

Goal 3: Ensure the fair and efficient administration of Justice,
Objective 3.5: Adjudicate all immigration cases promptly and impartially
in accordance with due process.

OPA has been included in the DOJ Strategic Plan for FY 2007 -- FY 2012
under Strategic Goal 2: Prevent Crime, Enforce federal Laws and
Represent the Rights and Interests of the American People, Objective
2.7: Vigorously enforce and represent the interests of the United States
in all matters over which the Department has jurisdiction.

While it is recognized that EOIR's primary mission is not
counterterrorism, the immigration enforcement programs of DHS, the
source of EOIR's caseload, represent a critical component of
counterterrorism initiatives. Further, the Attorney General's
authorities with respect to the application and interpretation of
immigration laws clearly impact government-wide enforcement strategies.
As such, EOIR remains an important function vis-à-vis DHS/DOJ
enforcement efforts.

3\. Full Program Costs

EOIR's submission includes specific performance measures, including
those identified in the Departmental Performance Plan and Report. The
measures include performance targets related to criminal alien, detained
alien and asylum caseloads. EOIR will continue to strive to meet the
targets. All costing methodologies, including modular costs, are
reflected in the attached financial exhibits.

4\. Performance Challenges

EOIR's challenges are of an internal and external nature. Externally,
budget proposals generally reflect collaboration with DHS to best
address workload projections or, in the case of IT projects, to
establish systems which facilitate interagency effectiveness. EOIR
receives virtually all workload in the form of cases brought by DHS
challenging the legal status and seeking the removal of aliens. The
importance of effectively planning and coordinating with DHS, as their
enforcement increases cannot be overstated.

Perhaps the greatest challenge to the BIA's mission of providing timely
guidance and interpretation of the immigration laws has been its
increasing caseload. Over the past decade, BIA's annual caseload has
increased nearly every year, peaking at 43,000 cases received in FY
2004. Although the caseload was lower in FY 2007 than in recent years,
the projected receipt level of over 35,000 appeals is an extremely large
volume for any appellate body.

The immigration court's caseload increases resulting from DHS'
heightened enforcement efforts will remain the key challenge for EOIR.
EOIR's courts continue to receive hundreds of thousands of matters for
adjudication. Immigration court caseload continues to be maintained at
very high levels, and the complexity of the caseload seems to be
increasing. It is anticipated that the current and planned expansion of
DHS enforcement efforts, e.g., detention bedspaces, criminal alien
programs and border enforcement, will increase immigration court case
receipts well into the future.

**II.** **Summary of Program Changes**

+------------+---------------------------------+----+----+-------+----+
| **Item     | **Description**                 |    |    |       | ** |
| Name**     |                                 |    |    |       | Pa |
|            |                                 |    |    |       | ge |
|            |                                 |    |    |       | ** |
+------------+---------------------------------+----+----+-------+----+
|            |                                 | ** | *  | **Do  |    |
|            |                                 | Po | *F | llars |    |
|            |                                 | s. | TE | (\$0  |    |
|            |                                 | ** | ** | 00)** |    |
+------------+---------------------------------+----+----+-------+----+
| Strategic  | Southwest Border Enforcement    |    |    | \$1   | 19 |
| Goal       | Initiative                      |    |    | 0,000 |    |
|            |                                 |    |    |       |    |
| 3.5        |                                 |    |    |       |    |
+------------+---------------------------------+----+----+-------+----+

The Administrative Review Appeals requests \$263,791,000 and 1,439 FTE
for FY 2009, and offset by \$4,000,000 to be transferred annually from
Immigration Examination Fees at the Department of Homeland Security.

The EOIR request includes a program increase of \$10,000,000 in support
of the Southwest Border Enforcement Initiative mission-critical and top
priority information technology. The initiative forms two key components
of EOIR's IT eWorld project, a multi-year, multi-phased effort to
upgrade and modernize aging, obsolete IT systems and to transition EOIR
from paper to electronic documents for its official records.

The request includes funding for the implementation and maintenance of
Digital Audio Recording (DAR) in all immigration courts nationwide. This
project was directed by the Attorney General as part of his
Comprehensive Review of EOIR, completed in 2006.

The balance of the program increase supports the priority Immigration
Review Information Exchange System (IRIES), the system through which
EOIR will share mission-critical information with its external business
partners, most notably the Department of Homeland Security and the DOJ's
Civil Division.

**III. Appropriations Language and Analysis of Appropriations Language**

**Appropriations Language\***

For expenses necessary for the administration of pardon and clemency
petitions and immigration-related activities, \[\$232,649,000\],
*[\$263,791,000, of which, \$4,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from
the Executive Office for Immigration Review fees deposited in the
"Immigration Examinations Fee" account.]{.underline}*

*[\[Provided, that \$3,760,000 shall be expended on the Executive Office
for Immigration Review's Legal Orientation Programs\]. \[For an
additional amount for "Administrative Review and Appeals", \$8,000,000
shall be for border security and immigration enforcement along the
Southwest Border: Provided, that the amount provided by this paragraph
is designated as described in section 5 (in the matter preceding
division A of this consolidated Act.)\] (Department of Justice
Appropriations Act, 2008)]{.underline}*

**Analysis of Appropriations Language**

No substantive changes.

IV\. Decision Unit Justification

**A. Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)**

  -------------------------------------- --------- -------- ---------------
  EOIR TOTAL                             Perm.     FTE      Amount
                                         Pos.               

  2007 Enacted                           1,386     1,364    226,813

  2008 Enacted                           1,386     1,424    238,320

  Adjustments to Base and Technical      0         0        13,084
  Adjustments                                               

  2009 Current Services                  1,386     1,424    251,404

  2009 Program Increases                 0         0        10,000

  2009 Request                           1,386     1,424    261,404

  Total Change 2008-2009                 0         0        23,084
  -------------------------------------- --------- -------- ---------------

  ------------------------------------ ---------- -------- ---------------
  EOIR---Information Technology        Perm. Pos. FTE      Amount
  Breakout (of Decision Unit Total)                        

  2007 Enacted                         22         22       25,582

  2008 Enacted                         23         23       23,902

  Adjustments to Base and Technical    0          0        0
  Adjustments                                              

  2009 Current Services                23         23       23,902

  2009 Program Increases               0          0        10,000

  2009 Request                         23         23       33,902

  Total Change 2008-2009               0          0        10,000
  ------------------------------------ ---------- -------- ---------------

**1. Program Description**

The EOIR is comprised of the Office of the Director and three
adjudicative components.

[Board of Immigration Appeals]{.underline} -- Under the direction of the
Chairman, the BIA hears appeals of decisions of immigration judges and
certain decisions of officers of the DHS in a wide variety of
proceedings in which the Government of the United States is one party
and the other party is an alien, a citizen, or a transportation carrier.
The BIA is directed to exercise its independent judgment in hearing
appeals for the Attorney General, and provides a nationally uniform
application of the immigration laws, both in terms of the interpretation
of the law and the exercise of the significant discretion vested in the
Attorney General. The majority of cases before the BIA involve appeals
from orders of EOIR's immigration judges entered in immigration
proceedings.

> Appeals of decisions of DHS officers, reviewed by the BIA, involve
> principally appeals from familial visa petition denials and decisions
> involving administrative fines on transportation carriers. The BIA
> also renders decisions on applications by organizations that have
> requested permission to practice before the BIA, the immigration
> judges, and DHS, and renders decisions on individual applications by
> employees of such organizations.

The BIA mission requires that national policies, as reflected in
immigration laws, be identified, considered, and integrated into its
decision process. The BIA plays the major role in interpreting the
immigration laws of this country, an area of law the courts have
characterized as uniquely complex. Processing an increasing caseload has
been a challenging task in a time of almost constant major legislative
action in the immigration field. The BIA has provided the principal
interpretation of the Immigration Reform Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), the
Immigration Amendments of 1988, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988; the
Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT 90); the Anti-terrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA); the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA); and the Nicaraguan
Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (NACARA); the Legal
Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000 (LIFE); and the LIFE Act
Amendments of 2000. These laws have represented the most fundamental
restructuring of the Immigration and Nationality Act since its enactment
in 1952, and have presented a myriad of new issues of statutory
construction. The BIA has issued interpretive decisions and has then
reinterpreted the Act as the laws have been redrafted.

[Office of the Chief Immigration Judge]{.underline} -- The Chief
Immigration Judge provides overall program direction, articulates
policy, and establishes priorities for the immigration judges located in
54 courts throughout the United States. Generally, immigration judges
may order aliens removed or grant relief such as cancellation of
removal, suspension of deportation, adjustment of status, asylum or
waivers of removability. If the immigration judges decide that
removability has not been established, they may terminate the
proceedings. Bond redetermination hearings are held when an alien in
custody seeks release on his or her own recognizance, or a reduction in
the amount of bond.

With respect to criminal alien adjudications, the Institutional Hearing
Program (IHP) provides the framework for hearings to determine the
immigration status of aliens convicted of offenses who are incarcerated
in federal, state and local prisons across the United States. EOIR's IHP
is part of the larger Institutional Removal Program, now operated by the
DHS. This program is a central component of a variety of initiatives
designed to expedite the removal of criminal aliens and involves close
coordination with DHS, the Bureau of Prisons and state and local
corrections authorities.

[Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer]{.underline} -- The
Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) employs
Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) appointed pursuant to

5 U.S.C. 3105 to adjudicate cases arising under Sections 274A, 274B and
274C of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). Section 274A
provides for sanctions against employers or entities who: (1) knowingly
hire, recruit, or refer for a fee, or continue to employ unauthorized
aliens; (2) fail to comply with the employment verification system; or
(3) require the execution of an indemnity bond to protect themselves
from potential liability for unlawful employment practices. Section 274
B prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin or
citizenship status and provides for civil penalties and various
remedies. Section 274C provides civil penalties for immigration-related
document fraud. Adjudicative proceedings are initiated by complaints
filed with the OCAHO and subsequently assigned to ALJs by the Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer (CAHO). Complaints are filed by the DHS
in section 274A and Section 274C cases and by the Office of Special
Counsel (OSC) for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices in
section 274B cases, or by the aggrieved party if OSC declines to file a
complaint.

> The CAHO may conduct administrative review and, unless the case is
> certified to the Attorney General, take the final agency action with
> respect to cases decided by ALJs under Sections 274A and 274C. The
> CAHO also certifies ALJs who hear Section 274B cases having received
> the training in employment discrimination matters as required by
> statute.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 21%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="12"><strong>PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES TABLE</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="12"><strong>Decision Unit: Executive Office for Immigration
Review</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="12"><strong>DOJ Strategic Goal/Objective 3.5 Adjudicate all
immigration cases promptly and impartially in accordance with due
process</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><h5 id="section"></h5>
<h5 id="workload-resources">WORKLOAD/ RESOURCES</h5></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Final Target</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Actual</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Changes</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Requested (Total)</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2007</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2007</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2008 Enacted</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Current Services</strong></p>
<p><strong>Adjustments and FY 2009</strong></p>
<p><strong>Program Changes</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2009 Request</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Workload: Immigration Court Matters
Received</strong></p>
<p><strong>Appeals Received at BIA</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>381,500</p>
<p>47,200</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>332,000</p>
<p>36,400</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>419,000</p>
<p>55,200</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>0</p>
<p>0</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>419,000</p>
<p>55,200</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2"><p><strong>Total Costs and FTE</strong></p>
<p><strong>(reimbursable FTE are included, but reimbursable</strong></p>
<p><strong>costs are bracketed and not included in the
total)</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>1,274</td>
<td>235,801</td>
<td>1,274</td>
<td>235,801</td>
<td>1,424</td>
<td>238,320</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>23,084</td>
<td>1,424</td>
<td>261,404</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>TYPE/ Strategic Objective</strong></td>
<td><strong>PERFORMANCE</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2007</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><h5 id="section-1"></h5>
<h5 id="fy-2007">FY 2007</h5></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>2008 Requirements</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Current Services</strong></p>
<p><strong>Adjustments and FY 2009</strong></p>
<p><strong>Program Changes</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2009 Request</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Program Activity</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2">3.5 Adjudicate Immigration Cases</td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>1,274</strong></td>
<td><strong>235,801</strong></td>
<td><strong>1,274</strong></td>
<td><strong>235,801</strong></td>
<td><strong>1,424</strong></td>
<td><strong>238,320</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>23,084</strong></td>
<td><strong>1,424</strong></td>
<td><strong>261,404</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Performance Measure</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Immigration Courts</strong></p>
<p>Total Matters Completed</p>
<p>Total Proceedings Completed</p>
<p>Expedited Asylum Completions</p>
<p>IHP Completions</p>
<p>Detained Completions w/out Apps.</p>
<p>Total immigration court priority cases completed</p>
<p>Backlog of pending court cases filed prior to FY04</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>364,500</p>
<p>310,500</p>
<p>47,000</p>
<p>7,900</p>
<p>70,000</p>
<p>124,900</p>
<p>10,070</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>327,300</p>
<p>272,000</p>
<p>21,200</p>
<p>6,000</p>
<p>87,400</p>
<p>114,600</p>
<p>5,000</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>389,500</p>
<p>335,500</p>
<p>47,000</p>
<p>7,900</p>
<p>70,000</p>
<p>124,900</p>
<p>0</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>0</p>
<p>0</p>
<p>0</p>
<p>0</p>
<p>0</p>
<p>0</p>
<p>0</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>389,500</p>
<p>335,500</p>
<p>47,000</p>
<p>7,900</p>
<p>70,000</p>
<p>124,900</p>
<p>0</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Performance Measure</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Board of Immigration Appeals</strong></p>
<p>Total Appeals Completed</p>
<p>Detained Completions</p>
<p>Total Appeal priority cases completed</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>48,300</p>
<p>4,000</p>
<p>4,000</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>35,400</p>
<p>3,200</p>
<p>3,200</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>52,300</p>
<p>4,000</p>
<p>4,000</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>0</p>
<p>0</p>
<p>0</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>52,300</p>
<p>4,000</p>
<p>4,000</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>Efficiency</strong></p>
<p><strong>Measure</strong></p></td>
<td>The measures above also serve as EOIR’s efficiency measures</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

+------+---------------+-------+-------+-------+---------+----------+
| **O  | **Immigration | ** ** | 90%   | 90%   |         | 90%      |
| UTCO | Courts**      |       |       |       |         |          |
| ME** |               | 90%   | 86%   | 90%   |         | 90%      |
|      | \% Exp Asylum |       |       |       |         |          |
|      | Cases within  | 90%   | 89%   | 90%   |         | 90%      |
|      | Time Goal     |       |       |       |         |          |
|      |               | 90%   | 89%   | 90%   |         | 90%      |
|      | \% IHP Cases  |       |       |       |         |          |
|      | within Time   | 90%   | 43%   | 50%   |         | 50%      |
|      | Goal          |       |       |       |         |          |
|      |               | 50%   | 97%   | 90%   |         | 90%      |
|      | \% Detained   |       |       |       |         |          |
|      | Cases within  | 90%   | 97%   | 90%   |         | 90%      |
|      | Time Goal     |       |       |       |         |          |
|      |               | 90%   |       |       |         |          |
|      | \%            |       |       |       |         |          |
|      | Immigration   |       |       |       |         |          |
|      | Court         |       |       |       |         |          |
|      | priority      |       |       |       |         |          |
|      | cases         |       |       |       |         |          |
|      |               |       |       |       |         |          |
|      | \% Backlog    |       |       |       |         |          |
|      | reduction     |       |       |       |         |          |
|      |               |       |       |       |         |          |
|      | **Board of    |       |       |       |         |          |
|      | Immigration   |       |       |       |         |          |
|      | Appeals**     |       |       |       |         |          |
|      |               |       |       |       |         |          |
|      | \% Detained   |       |       |       |         |          |
|      | Cases         |       |       |       |         |          |
|      | Adjudicated   |       |       |       |         |          |
|      | within Time   |       |       |       |         |          |
|      | Goal          |       |       |       |         |          |
|      |               |       |       |       |         |          |
|      | \% Appeal     |       |       |       |         |          |
|      | priority      |       |       |       |         |          |
|      | cases         |       |       |       |         |          |
|      | completed     |       |       |       |         |          |
+------+---------------+-------+-------+-------+---------+----------+

> **\*** Performance decreased in FY 2007, in large part due to the
> number of vacant immigration judge positions. With regard to the
> Institutional Hearing Program cases, the Department of Homeland
> Security often did not file the Notice to Appear in a timely manner,
> causing EOIR to be unable to ensure that its judges could be present
> in the various detained locations to conduct hearings prior to the
> alien's earliest possible release date. Within the detained without
> applications for relief category, there was a 33 percent increase in
> receipts of this case type in FY 2007. This large increase in
> caseload, coupled with the number of immigration judge vacancies
> nationwide, caused EOIR to miss this goal by one percent.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 22%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">Performance Report and Performance Plan Targets</td>
<td>FY 2001</td>
<td>FY 2002</td>
<td>FY 2003</td>
<td>FY 2004</td>
<td>FY 2005</td>
<td>FY 2006</td>
<td colspan="2">FY 2007</td>
<td>FY 2008</td>
<td>FY 2009</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td>Actual</td>
<td>Actual</td>
<td>Actual</td>
<td>Actual</td>
<td>Actual</td>
<td>Actual</td>
<td>Target</td>
<td>Actual</td>
<td>Target</td>
<td>Target</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Performance</p>
<p>Measures</p></td>
<td><p>Total Matters Completed</p>
<p>Total Proceedings Completed</p>
<p>Expedited Asylum Completions</p>
<p>IHP Completions</p>
<p>Detained Completions without Applications</p>
<p>Total immigration court priority cases completed</p></td>
<td><p>259,584</p>
<p>218,282</p>
<p>31,019</p>
<p>11,107</p>
<p>48,085</p>
<p>90,211</p></td>
<td><p>273,926</p>
<p>228,412</p>
<p>39,438</p>
<p>9,637</p>
<p>50,312</p>
<p>99,387</p></td>
<td><p>296,494</p>
<p>250,763</p>
<p>50,017</p>
<p>7,696</p>
<p>58,734</p>
<p>116,447</p></td>
<td><p>301,203</p>
<p>258,946</p>
<p>47,078</p>
<p>7,835</p>
<p>58,849</p>
<p>113,762</p></td>
<td><p>352,000</p>
<p>314,000</p>
<p>43,000</p>
<p>9,000</p>
<p>59,000</p>
<p>111,000</p></td>
<td><p>365,851</p>
<p>323,000</p>
<p>27,000</p>
<p>5,600</p>
<p>64,000</p>
<p>96,600</p></td>
<td><p>364,500</p>
<p>310,500</p>
<p>47,000</p>
<p>7,900</p>
<p>70,000</p>
<p>124,900</p></td>
<td><p>327,300</p>
<p>272,000</p>
<p>21,200</p>
<p>6,000</p>
<p>87,400</p>
<p>114,600</p></td>
<td><p>389,500</p>
<p>335,500</p>
<p>47,000</p>
<p>7,900</p>
<p>70,000</p>
<p>124,900</p></td>
<td><p>389,500</p>
<p>335,500</p>
<p>47,000</p>
<p>7,900</p>
<p>70,000</p>
<p>124,900</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Performance</p>
<p>Measures</p></td>
<td><p>Total Appeals Completed</p>
<p>Detained Completions*</p></td>
<td><p>31,801</p>
<p>N/A</p></td>
<td><p>47,327</p>
<p>N/A</p></td>
<td><p>48,060</p>
<p>3,694</p></td>
<td><p>48,711</p>
<p>4,089</p></td>
<td><p>46,300</p>
<p>3,425</p></td>
<td><p>41,400</p>
<p>3,000</p></td>
<td><p>48,300</p>
<p>4,000</p></td>
<td><p>35,400</p>
<p>3,200</p></td>
<td><p>52,300</p>
<p>4,000</p></td>
<td><p>52,300</p>
<p>4,000</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Efficiency</p>
<p>Measures</p></td>
<td>The measures above also serve as EOIR’s efficiency measures</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>**OUTCOME Measures</td>
<td><p>% Expedited Asylum Cases within Time Goal</p>
<p>% IHP Cases w/in Time Goal</p>
<p>% Detained w/out Applications w/in</p>
<p>Time Goal</p>
<p>% Immigration Court priority cases completed</p>
<p>% Backlog reduction</p></td>
<td><p>91%</p>
<p>89%</p>
<p>83%</p>
<p>N/A</p>
<p>N/A</p></td>
<td><p>91%</p>
<p>84%</p>
<p>84%</p>
<p>N/A</p>
<p>N/A</p></td>
<td><p>91%</p>
<p>86%</p>
<p>88%</p>
<p>89%</p>
<p>N/A</p></td>
<td><p>89%</p>
<p>88%</p>
<p>88%</p>
<p>89%</p>
<p>59%</p></td>
<td><p>92%</p>
<p>89%</p>
<p>91%</p>
<p>91%</p>
<p>58%</p></td>
<td><p>95%</p>
<p>92%</p>
<p>92%</p>
<p>93%</p>
<p>68%</p></td>
<td><p>90%</p>
<p>90%</p>
<p>90%</p>
<p>90%</p>
<p>50%</p></td>
<td><p>90%</p>
<p>86%</p>
<p>89%</p>
<p>89%</p>
<p>43%</p></td>
<td><p>90%</p>
<p>90%</p>
<p>90%</p>
<p>90%</p>
<p>50%</p></td>
<td><p>90%</p>
<p>90%</p>
<p>90%</p>
<p>90%</p>
<p>N/A</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>**OUTCOME</p>
<p>Measures</p></td>
<td><p>% Detained Appeals Adjudicated within Time Goal</p>
<p>% Appeals priority cases completed</p></td>
<td><p>N/A</p>
<p>N/A</p></td>
<td><p>N/A</p>
<p>N/A</p></td>
<td><p>81%</p>
<p>81%</p></td>
<td><p>91%</p>
<p>91%</p></td>
<td><p>92%</p>
<p>92%</p></td>
<td><p>97%</p>
<p>97%</p></td>
<td><p>90%</p>
<p>90%</p></td>
<td><p>97%</p>
<p>97%</p></td>
<td><p>90%</p>
<p>90%</p></td>
<td><p>90%</p>
<p>90%</p></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

N/A = Data unavailable. The performance measures and outcome measures
for which data are unavailable are new measures implemented in FY 2004.

\*Completion figures (in the Performance Measures rows) are not targets,
but rather projected completions for fiscal years 2007 -- 2009. EOIR's
targets are the percentages shown in the OUTCOME Measures row.

\*\*Denotes inclusion in the DOJ Performance and Accountability Report

**B. Office of the Pardon Attorney** **(OPA)**

  ------------------------------------ ---------- -------- ---------------
  OPA TOTAL                            Perm. Pos. FTE      Amount

  2007 Enacted                         15         15       2,329

  2008 Enacted                         15         15       2,329

  Adjustments to Base and Technical    0          0        58
  Adjustments                                              

  2009 Current Services                15         15       2,387

  2009 Program Increases               0          0        0

  2009 Request                         15         15       2,387

  Total Change 2008-2009               0          0        58
  ------------------------------------ ---------- -------- ---------------

1\. Program Description

The Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA) receives and reviews all
petitions for executive clemency, conducts the necessary investigations
and prepares recommendations to the President for action. OPA provides
guidance for the conduct of clemency proceedings and the standards for
decisions. OPA confers with individual clemency applicants, their
representatives, public groups, members of Congress, various federal,
state, and local officials and others in connection with the disposition
of clemency proceedings.

OPA participates in training and other conferences that are related to
the field of criminal justice corrections, and clemency, and maintains a
network of contacts required of OPA with Department officials, the
counsel of the President, and other government officials. OPA's staff
currently includes six attorneys, three paralegals, and six office
support positions.

OPA is requesting a total of 15 permanent positions, 15 FTE, and
\$2,387,000 in its salaries and expenses appropriation. This request
represents an increase of \$58,000 over the FY 2008 enacted
appropriation of \$2,329,000.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 17%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="13"><strong>PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES TABLE</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="13"><strong>Decision Unit: Office of the Pardon
Attorney</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="13"><strong>DOJ Strategic Goal/Objective: Goal 2.7 Vigorous
enforcement and represent the interests of the United States in all
matters which the Department has jurisdiction</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><strong>WORKLOAD/ RESOURCES</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Final Target</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Actual</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Changes</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>Requested (Total)</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2007</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2007</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2008 Enacted</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Current Services Adjustments and FY 2009 Program
Changes</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>FY 2009 Request</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><strong>Petitions received/pending</strong></td>
<td colspan="2">2,275</td>
<td colspan="2">2,163</td>
<td colspan="2">2,700</td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="3">2,700</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><strong>Correspondence received</strong></td>
<td colspan="2">5,400</td>
<td colspan="2">5,400</td>
<td colspan="2">5,700</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td colspan="3">5,700</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><strong> </strong></td>
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2"><strong>Total Costs and FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>12</td>
<td>2,198</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>2,198</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>2,329</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>58</td>
<td colspan="2">15</td>
<td>2,387</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>TYPE/ STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE</strong></td>
<td><strong>PERFORMANCE</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2007</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2007</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FY 2008 Enacted</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Current Services Adjustments and FY
2009</strong></p>
<p><strong>Program Changes</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>FY 2009 Request</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Program Activity</strong></td>
<td> </td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Clemency Petitions Processed</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>2,128</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>2,128</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>2,209</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>46</td>
<td colspan="2">12</td>
<td>2,255</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Performance Measure</strong></td>
<td># of clemency petitions processed by OPA</td>
<td colspan="2">1,100</td>
<td colspan="2">1,079</td>
<td colspan="2">1,100</td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="3">1,100</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Program Activity</strong></td>
<td>Correspondence Processed</td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>FTE</strong></td>
<td><strong>$000</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td> </td>
<td>2</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>120</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>12</td>
<td colspan="2">3</td>
<td>132</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Performance Measure</strong></td>
<td>Number of pieces of correspondence processed</td>
<td colspan="2">5,400</td>
<td colspan="2">5,400</td>
<td colspan="2">5,700</td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="3">5,700</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>OUTCOME</strong></td>
<td>Petitions Pending at OPA</td>
<td colspan="2">1,000</td>
<td colspan="2">1,080</td>
<td colspan="2">1,100</td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="3">1,100</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="13">Data Definition, Validation, Verification, and
Limitations: OPA's mission critical case and correspondence tracking
system is updated daily and used extensively by the Pardon Attorney and
staff to track the status of clemency petitions and correspondence. The
data reflected under the "Actual Performance Measure" column is derived
from this tracking system and cross-referenced with internal reports to
ensure a high degree of accuracy.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 22%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="13"><strong>PERFORMANCE MEASURE TABLE</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="13">Decision Unit: Office of the Pardon Attorney</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">Performance Report and Performance Plan Targets</td>
<td colspan="2">FY 2001</td>
<td>FY 2002</td>
<td>FY 2003</td>
<td>FY 2004</td>
<td>FY 2005</td>
<td>FY 2006</td>
<td colspan="2">FY 2007</td>
<td>FY 2008</td>
<td>FY 2009</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2">Actual</td>
<td>Actual</td>
<td>Actual</td>
<td>Actual</td>
<td>Actual</td>
<td>Actual</td>
<td>Target</td>
<td>Actual</td>
<td>Target</td>
<td>Target</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Performance</p>
<p>Measures</p></td>
<td>Number of Clemency Petitions Processed at OPA</td>
<td colspan="2">1,092</td>
<td>1,431</td>
<td>1,293</td>
<td>1,123</td>
<td>1,217</td>
<td>1,046</td>
<td>1,100</td>
<td>1,079</td>
<td>1,100</td>
<td>1,100</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Performance</p>
<p>Measures</p></td>
<td>Pieces of Correspondence Processed</td>
<td colspan="2">8,838</td>
<td>7,000</td>
<td>5,600</td>
<td>5,250</td>
<td>5,250</td>
<td>5,250</td>
<td>5,400</td>
<td>5,400</td>
<td>5,700</td>
<td>5,700</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>OUTCOME Measures</td>
<td>Petitions Pending at OPA</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>904</td>
<td>1,000</td>
<td>1,080</td>
<td>1,100</td>
<td>1,100</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="3">N/A = Data unavailable</td>
<td colspan="10"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="3"><strong>* Denotes inclusion in the DOJ Annual
Performance Plan</strong></td>
<td colspan="10"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

2\. Performance, Resources, and Strategies

Resources from EOIR contribute to the achievement of the Department's
Strategic Goal 3: Ensure the fair and efficient administration of
justice. Within this Goal, EOIR's resources specifically address the
Department's Strategic Objective 3.5: Adjudicate all immigration cases
promptly and impartially in accordance with due process*.*

In addition, owing to the unique relationships between EOIR
adjudications programs and DHS immigration enforcement programs,
resources from EOIR contribute to Strategic Goal 1: Prevent Terrorism
and Promote the Nation's Security.

Resources from OPA contribute to the achievement of the Department's
Strategic Goal 2: Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws and Represent the
Rights and Interests of the American People. Within this Goal, OPA's
resources specifically address the Department's Strategic Objective 2.7:
Vigorously enforce and represent the interests of the United States in
all matters over which the Department has jurisdiction.

a\. Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes

As illustrated in the preceding Performance Measure Table, the
performance outcome measure for EOIR is the percentage of high priority
cases completed within established time frames. The FY 2009 targets for
the four case types are 90% within the established time frames.

For the immigration courts, EOIR chose three priority case types as
performance measures, and set the following goals:

• 90% of expedited asylum cases completed within 180 days

-   90% of Institutional Hearing Program (criminal alien cases)
    completed before release from incarceration

• 90% of detained cases without applications for relief completed within
30 days

In FY 2007, the immigration courts met its target with regard to
expedited asylum, but narrowly missed its other two targets due to a
large number of immigration judge vacancies and an increase in the
detained caseload. These three performance measures will be continued in
FY 2009.

The performance measure for the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) is:

• 90% of detained appeals adjudicated within 150 days

In FY 2007, the BIA exceeded this target by 7% and expects to exceed it
again in FY 2008. This performance measure will continue in FY 2009.

EOIR's adjudication functions are part of the government's larger
immigration and border control programs. As such, EOIR's ability to
adjudicate cases in a timely fashion allows the larger system to operate
more efficiently, including the efficient utilization of DHS detention
bed spaces. The guarantee of fairness and due process remains a
cornerstone of our judicial system. EOIR's role in the provision of
relief in meritorious cases, and in the denial of relief in others helps
assure the integrity of the overall process.

In summary, the FY 2009 target is to complete 90% of EOIR's priority
adjudications with established timeframes.

b\. Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes

Case adjudication is the performance indicator for EOIR. Performance
measures (the number of cases completed) have been established for
several high priority case types. The outcome measure for this indicator
is the percentage of high priority cases that are completed within
established time frames.

EOIR has established case completion goals for the various types of
cases that the immigration courts adjudicate, and will continue to
reallocate existing resources to the adjudication of priority cases.
This includes the adjustment of court dockets to increase the number of
calendars devoted to detained cases and expedited asylum cases, and
increasing the frequency of immigration judge details to federal, state
and local correctional facilities as needed to adjudicate Institutional
Hearing Program cases.

Finally, EOIR is moving ahead with its plans to transition from paper to
electronic records. When fully implemented, this initiative will improve
efficiency throughout the adjudication process, and a higher percentage
of EOIR's cases will be adjudicated within target time frames. For
example, data from electronically filed documents will be automatically
uploaded to EOIR's database, thus decreasing data entry time; electronic
Records of Proceedings (ROPs) will be available for simultaneous access
by staff who need to use them, eliminating the time spent waiting for
files; and digitally recorded hearings can be made available to
transcribers instantly rather than mailing audio tapes back and forth.

c\. Results of Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews

EOIR was reviewed under the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
process in 2006 for budget year 2008. EOIR received a score of
"Moderately Effective." An improvement plan has been put in place to
undertake over the next several years. The first action item from the
improvement plan was completed when EOIR reassessed its targets to
ensure that they were suitably ambitious. Although most measures were
determined to be suitably ambitious, the BIA did shorten the time frame
for completion of detained cases to 150 days. The second action item,
which concerns the implementation of digital audio recording (DAR), is
well underway. During FY 2007, EOIR designed, developed, and piloted the
DAR system. The implementation of DAR will occur during FY 2008, with
development of the second phase of the project also occurring. The third
action item is expanded training for immigration judges and Board legal
staff, which began in FY 2007 with the revision of numerous legal
references materials. Training will be further implemented in FY 2008.
EOIR will be reviewed again in 2011.

# V. Program Increases by Item 

**Item Name: [Southwest Border Enforcement Initiative]{.underline}**

Budget Decision Unit(s): [Executive Office for Immigration
Review]{.underline}

Strategic Goal(s) & Objective(s): [3.5 Adjudicate all immigration cases
promptly and]{.underline}

[impartially in accordance with due process]{.underline}

Organizational Program: [EOIR IT eWorld]{.underline}

Component Ranking of Item: [1]{.underline}

Program Increase: Positions [0]{.underline} Agt/Atty [0]{.underline} FTE
[0]{.underline} Dollars [\$10,000,000]{.underline}

[Description of Item]{.underline}

**EOIR's request includes an enhancement of \$10,000,000**. This request
ties to the Department of Justice Strategic Plan, the President's
Management Agenda, and Attorney General directives related specifically
to the Southwest Border Enforcement Initiative. This request seeks to
continue development of EOIR's IT eWorld project, which will enhance the
efficiency of case adjudication, thereby ensuring due process while at
the same time enabling the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to
remove aliens from the United States in a timely manner. With the
establishment of the DHS Secure Border Initiative, and the Department of
Justice's emphasis on timely adjudications while ensuring due process,
the various components of the IT eWorld project will assist both
Departments in achieving their goals of processing civil immigration
cases and removing aliens who have no avenues for relief.

The IT eWorld project is a multi-year, multi-phased project that is
transitioning EOIR from paper to electronic documents for its official
records. During FY 2005 -- FY 2007, EOIR designed and began developing
three major information technology projects.

(1) The Case Access System for EOIR (CASE) is a web-based electronic
    case management system that consolidated EOIR's stove-piped legacy
    databases. This system is the foundation for all subsequent phases
    of the IT eWorld project.

(2) The digital audio recording (DAR) system will revolutionize how
    immigration proceedings are recorded and transcribed. Similar to
    CASE, the DAR system is a required building block for future phases
    of the IT eWorld project.

(3) The Immigration Review Information Exchange System (IRIES) is being
    designed for collaboration with other federal entities to ensure
    that agencies are sharing data in the most efficient manner
    possible.

To date, EOIR has received no additional funds for these projects;
rather, all IT eWorld-related projects have been funded out of base
appropriations. Although EOIR was able to deploy the initial phase of
the CASE project using base funding, the final configuration of CASE and
the full deployment of DAR and IRIES cannot be supported from base
funding. A program increase is required to complete these
mission-critical projects.

As EOIR's IT eWorld implementation progresses, other government
agencies, attorneys, parties to immigration cases, and interested
persons will be able to submit materials to EOIR's adjudication
components and to view EOIR public adjudication records via CASE, the
web-based case management system. At the conclusion of IT eWorld, all
paper filings will be processed in electronic form and immigration
judges, Board Members, and staff will use the electronic records in
their work. All orders, notices, and decisions will be entered and
maintained in electronic form.

EOIR's FY 2009 request supports two projects that will lay the
groundwork for complete implementation of the IT eWorld Southwest Border
Enforcement Initiative: DAR and IRIES.

1)  Digital Audio Recording (DAR): As noted above, the reallocation of
    base resources in support of the IT eWorld projects will no longer
    be possible by 2009. EOIR will implement DAR over two years, 2008
    and 2009.

    a.  As part of the Attorney General's Comprehensive Review of EOIR,
        he directed EOIR to design and implement a digital recording
        system. EOIR currently uses antiquated analog recording
        equipment to create the official transcripts of immigration
        hearings. In addition to being a time-consuming process with
        poor quality of the tape recordings, it should be noted that the
        manufacturer of these analog recorders ceased production more
        than a year ago. While substantially improving audio quality,
        digital recording technology reduces inaccuracies and eliminates
        inaudible and indiscernible passages, as well as solves the
        problem of missing or damaged tapes. This will save adjudication
        time, as it will eliminate the need for judges to repeat a
        hearing because too many portions of the tape are inaudible.

> When respondents file appeals with the BIA, the recorded hearing will
> be electronically sent to transcribers in lieu of physically
> delivering analog tapes by courier, thereby drastically reducing the
> time required to receive and transfer recordings for transcription as
> well as reducing vulnerabilities for lost or damaged recordings. In
> addition, EOIR oversight and management staff will be able to access
> recordings of hearings within minutes of the proceeding's completion,
> providing new avenues for EOIR management to oversee and review
> immigration judges' conduct in the courtroom. Access to digital audio
> recordings directly by DOJ Civil Division litigators, the Department
> of Homeland Security, and alien attorneys/representatives will greatly
> enhance resolution of issues in cases in which tapes are not routinely
> transcribed, or in which issues regarding the sufficiency of the
> record have emerged. In FY 2006 and 2007, EOIR absorbed the costs for
> the DAR project in its base appropriation. However, with the hiring of
> immigration judges and rising information technology costs, EOIR can
> no longer absorb the DAR development costs. Without the funds to
> continue the development and implementation of DAR, more than half of
> the immigration courts will continue to be dependent on analog tape
> recorders that cannot be repaired or replaced.

b.  Although DAR will provide cost avoidance in terms of transcribers
    not being able to complete a transcription due to poor audio quality
    as well as courier costs, the DAR project will include recurring
    annual O&M costs. Without the necessary license renewals, equipment
    upgrades, and other associated maintenance costs, EOIR's dependence
    on obsolete technology would be prolonged. In addition, change of
    venue requests will require that all court sites sustain an analog
    tape capability until the digital recording capability is fully
    implemented.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2)  Immigration Review Information Exchange System (IRIES):

    a.  The President's Management Agenda encourages the use of
        information technology to open communications between agencies
        and with the public. IRIES will serve as the conduit through
        which EOIR will share mission-critical information with its
        external business partners in the federal government. This
        project will enable EOIR to provide timely documents and
        information to law enforcement agencies. EOIR has signed a
        Memorandum of Understanding and is already working with the
        Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of DHS to
        exchange information more efficiently and effectively, which
        will enable ICE to deport criminal aliens and others who have
        violated immigration laws. The advent of this capability will
        eliminate various manual processes and enhance the accuracy of
        information vital to both agencies.

> IRIES will also allow for closer integration of EOIR and Civil
> Division systems for purposes of federal immigration litigation.
> Current issues of cross jurisdiction, federal court frustration, and
> untimely and ineffective litigation strategies will be eliminated or
> greatly alleviated by allowing EOIR data to populate Civil Division
> databases through IRIES. In addition, certified administrative records
> will be delivered electronically through IRIES, dramatically reducing
> security vulnerabilities, shipping and handling timeframes, and
> occurrences of lost or damaged records. The federal courts of appeals
> have already requested electronic delivery of records, as have some in
> the private immigration bar. With its current technology, EOIR cannot
> meet these requests. Coordinating documentation and information
> exchanges between the various federal immigration litigation
> stakeholders in this manner will minimize the current frustrations,
> inconsistent results, and susceptibility to abuse inherent in this
> area. Without the funds to continue the development and implementation
> of IRIES, EOIR will be vulnerable to security threats and questionable
> data integrity that come from the transfer of paper records and
> multiple data entries.

b.  Similar to the DAR project, IRIES will provide various cost
    avoidances, but it will also include development, modernization, and
    enhancement costs for several out-years. Without the necessary
    upgrades and maintenance, the IRIES system will not be stable. As
    more federal and state partners request access, document management
    business processes will require accommodation and the maintenance
    costs will inevitably grow.

[Justification]{.underline}

EOIR will require the resources requested to continue the progress it
has made on the Southwest Border Enforcement Initiative IT eWorld
project as well as to implement the Attorney General's directive of
updating its recording systems and other technologies. In addition, EOIR
strives to meet both federal and agency goals. By enabling EOIR to share
information with DHS, the DOJ Civil Division, and the federal courts,
the IRIES portion of the eWorld project addresses the DOJ IT Strategic
Goal 1, Information Sharing and Collaboration, which in turn supports
the President's Management Agenda. Finally, the DAR portion of the
project will allow for more accurate recordings of court proceedings, as
well as the elimination of the need to transfer tapes between locations.
These advances directly address DOJ IT Strategic Goal 2, Enabling
Federated Solutions, by enhancing national security operations and
judicial support operations (E-Gov), as well as by improving detention
operations.

[Impact on Performance (Relationship of Increase to Strategic
Goals)]{.underline}

Critical to the success of various DOJ and DHS initiatives will be the
ability of EOIR to process immigration judge and appellate caseload
within the time frames established by EOIR and the Department. Objective
3.5 of the Department's Strategic Plan is to adjudicate all immigration
cases promptly and impartially in accordance with due process. The
implementation of a DAR system will assist EOIR in accomplishing this
objective, as cases that are appealed will be transcribed more
accurately and will be sent more quickly to the appropriate parties. In
addition, this program increase will meet the objective under goal 2
that concerns the fair and efficient processing of civil immigration
cases. The IRIES portion of this program increase will allow EOIR to
exchange information with the Civil Division, which is responsible for
representing the government in civil immigration cases. Currently, EOIR
spends a great deal of time and money to certify cases for the Civil
Division, and both the DAR and IRIES projects will alleviate these
expenses.

**Funding**

[Base Funding]{.underline}

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="4"><p id="fy-2007-enacted-wresc.supps" class="heading">FY
2007 Enacted (w/resc./supps)</p></td>
<td colspan="4"><p id="fy-2008-enacted" class="heading">FY 2008
Enacted</p></td>
<td colspan="4"><p id="fy-2009-current-services" class="heading">FY 2009
Current Services</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Pos</td>
<td>agt/atty</td>
<td>FTE</td>
<td>$(000)</td>
<td>Pos</td>
<td><p>agt/</p>
<p>atty</p></td>
<td>FTE</td>
<td>$(000)</td>
<td>Pos</td>
<td>agt/atty</td>
<td>FTE</td>
<td>$(000)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1386</td>
<td>456</td>
<td>1364</td>
<td>226,813</td>
<td>1386</td>
<td>456</td>
<td>1424</td>
<td>238,320</td>
<td>1386</td>
<td>456</td>
<td>1424</td>
<td>251,404</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Non-Personnel Increase Cost Summary

+--------------+-------------+----------+-------------+--------------+
| N            | Unit        | Quantity | FY 2009     | FY 2010 Net  |
| on-Personnel |             |          |             | A            |
|              |             |          | Request     | nnualization |
| Item         |             |          |             | (Change from |
|              |             |          | (\$000)     | 2009)        |
|              |             |          |             |              |
|              |             |          |             | (\$000)      |
+--------------+-------------+----------+-------------+--------------+
| Total        |             |          | 10,000      |              |
| N            |             |          |             |              |
| on-Personnel |             |          |             |              |
+--------------+-------------+----------+-------------+--------------+

Total Request for this Item

+------------+-----+------+--------+---------+------------+---------+
|            | Pos | Agt/ | FTE    | Pe      | Non        | Total   |
|            |     | Atty |        | rsonnel | -Personnel |         |
|            |     |      |        |         |            | (\$000) |
|            |     |      |        | (\$000) | (\$000)    |         |
+------------+-----+------+--------+---------+------------+---------+
| Current    | 1   | 456  | 1424   | 152,872 | 98,532     | 251,404 |
| Services   | 386 |      |        |         |            |         |
+------------+-----+------+--------+---------+------------+---------+
| Increases  |     |      |        |         | 10,000     | 10,000  |
+------------+-----+------+--------+---------+------------+---------+
| Grand      | 1   | 456  | 1424   | 152,872 | 108,532    | 261,404 |
| Total      | 386 |      |        |         |            |         |
+------------+-----+------+--------+---------+------------+---------+

**VI. E-Government Initiatives**

The Justice Department is fully committed to the President's Management
Agenda (PMA) and the E-Government initiatives that are integral to
achieving the objectives of the PMA. The E-Government initiatives serve
citizens, business, and federal employees by delivering high quality
services more efficiently at a lower price. The Department is in varying
stages of implementing E-Government solutions and services including
initiatives focused on integrating government wide transactions,
processes, standards adoption, and consolidation of administrative
systems that are necessary tools for agency administration, but are not
core to DOJ's mission. To ensure that DOJ obtains value from the various
initiatives, the Department actively participates in the governance
bodies that direct the initiatives and we communicate regularly with the
other federal agencies that are serving as the "Managing Partners" to
ensure that the initiatives meet the needs of the Department and its
customers. The Department believes that working with other agencies to
implement common or consolidated solutions will help DOJ to reduce the
funding requirements for administrative and public-facing systems,
thereby allowing DOJ to focus more of its scarce resources on higher
priority, mission related needs. DOJ's modest contributions to the
Administration's E-Government projects will facilitate achievement of
this objective.

**A. Funding and Costs**

The Department of Justice participates in the following E-Government
initiatives and Lines of Business:

  --------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------
  Business Gateway      E-Travel          Integrated        Case Management
                                          Acquisition       LoB
                                          Environment       

  Disaster Assistance   Federal Asset     IAE - Loans &     Geospatial LoB
  Improvement Plan      Sales             Grants - Dunn &   
                                          Bradstreet        

  Disaster Assist.      Geospatial        Financial Mgmt.   Budget
  Improvement Plan -    One-Stop          Consolidated LoB  Formulation and
  Capacity Surge                                            Execution LoB

  E-Authentication      GovBenefits.gov   Human Resources   IT
                                          LoB               Infrastructure
                                                            LoB

  E-Rulemaking          Grants.gov        Grants Management 
                                          LoB               
  --------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------

The Department of Justice E-Government expenses -- i.e. DOJ's share of
e-Gov initiatives managed by other federal agencies -- are paid for from
the Department's Working Capital Fund. These costs, along with other
internal E-Government related expenses (oversight and administrative
expenses such as salaries, rent, etc.) are reimbursed by the components
to the WCF. The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
reimbursement amount is based on the anticipated or realized benefits
from an e-Government initiative. EOIR's E-Government reimbursement to
the WCF is \$124,000 for FY2008. The anticipated EOIR e-Government
reimbursement to WCF is \$130,000 for FY2009.

**EXHIBITS**