Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Finance, U. S. Senate 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO 

August 2006 EXECUTIVE OFFICE 

FOR IMMIGRATION 

REVIEW 

Caseload Performance 

Reporting Needs 

Improvement 

GAO-06-771 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-771.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Paul L. Jones 

at (202) 512-8777 or jonespl@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-06-771, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Finance, United 

States Senate 

August 2006

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION 

REVIEW 

Caseload Performance Reporting Needs 

Improvement 

From fiscal years 2000 to 2005, despite an increase in the number of 

immigration judges, the number of new cases filed in immigration courts 

outpaced cases completed. During this period, while the number of on-board 

judges increased about 3 percent, the courts’ caseload climbed about 39 

percent from about 381,000 cases to about 531,000 cases. The number of 

completed cases increased about 37 percent while newly filed cases grew 

about 44 percent. EOIR attributes this growth in part to enhanced border 

enforcement activities. The courts reduced the number of proceedings 

awaiting adjudication for more than 4 years, but did not meet their goal to 

complete all proceedings more than 3 years old by December 31, 2005. 

OCIJ relies primarily on an automated system to assign cases to immigration 

judges within a court. To balance the judges’ caseload, OCIJ considers the 

number of newly filed cases and cases awaiting adjudication from prior 

years, historical data, and the type and complexity of cases. To manage its 

growing caseload, OCIJ, among other means, details judges from their 

assigned court to a court in need of assistance and uses available technology 

such as video conferencing. According to OCIJ, if it recognizes a pattern of 

sustained need, it recommends that EOIR establish a court in a new location. 

EOIR evaluates the performance of the immigration courts based on the 

immigration courts’ success in meeting case completion goals. GAO’s review 

of EOIR’s quarterly reports on these goals identified a recurring 

inconsistency between reports as well as other inconsistencies. EOIR 

explained that these inconsistencies were due to a variety of factors, 

including the exemption of different categories of cases from the goals in 

different quarters, delays in data entry, and programming errors in the 

calculation of the data. Because EOIR has changed its criteria for cases 

covered by these goals and only maintained the queries for its current 

reporting process, GAO could not replicate past case completion reports to 

determine their accuracy. The inconsistencies indicate that EOIR should 

maintain appropriate documentation to demonstrate the reports’ accuracy. 

Immigration Court Caseload versus Completed Cases, All Courts, Fiscal Years 2000 through 

2005 

Within the Department of Justice’s 

(DOJ) Executive Office for 

Immigration Review (EOIR), the 

Office of the Chief Immigration 

Judge (OCIJ) is responsible for 

managing the 53 immigration 

courts located throughout the 

United States where over 200 

immigration judges adjudicate 

individual cases involving alleged 

immigration law violations. This 

report addresses: (1) in recent 

years, what has been the trend in 

immigration courts’ caseload; (2) 

how does OCIJ assign and manage 

the immigration court caseload; 

and (3) how does EOIR/OCIJ 

evaluate the immigration courts’ 

performance? To address these 

issues, GAO interviewed EOIR 

officials; reviewed information on 

caseload trends, caseload 

management, and court 

evaluations; and analyzed caseload 

data, case completion goal data, 

and OCIJ court evaluation reports. 

What GAO Recommends

To more accurately and 

consistently reflect immigration 

courts’ progress in the timely 

adjudication of immigration cases, 

GAO recommends that the Director 

of EOIR maintain appropriate 

documentation to demonstrate the 

accuracy of case completion goal 

reports; and clearly state what 

cases are being counted in the 

reports. EOIR agreed with GAO’s 

recommendations and provided 

technical comments, which were 

included as appropriate. 
Page i GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 5 

Immigration Court Caseload Continues to Increase; Some Progress 

Has Been Made in Completing Oldest Proceedings Awaiting 

Adjudication 11 

OCIJ Monitors Caseload to Assign Cases to Judges Accordingly, 

and Uses a Variety of Means to Address Growing Caseload 16 

EOIR's Case Completion Goal Reports Contain Some 

Inconsistencies; Peer Evaluations Used to Evaluate Court 

Operations 20 

Conclusions 29 

Recommendations for Executive Action 30 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 30 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 31 

Appendix II Glossary 34 

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 41 

Tables 

Table 1: OCIJ Goals to Eliminate Proceedings Awaiting 

Adjudication over 3 Years Old 15 

Table 2: Number of Proceedings Awaiting Adjudication 3 or More 

Years, by Age, All Courts, End of Fiscal Years 2003 through 

2005 and as of December 31, 2005 15 

Table 3: Current Targeted Case Completion Goals and Completion 

Rates 21 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

Figures 

Figure 1: Steps in the Immigration Court Removal Proceedings 

Process 10 

Figure 2: Immigration Court Caseload versus Completed Cases, 

All Courts, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005 12 

Figure 3: Immigration Court Caseload Compared to Average 

Number of Cases per On-board Immigration Judge, Fiscal 

Years 2000 through 2005 14 

Figure 5: OCIJ Immigration Court Evaluation Process 27 

Abbreviations 

ACIJ Assistant Chief Immigration Judge 

BIA Board of Immigration Appeals 

CEU Court Evaluation Unit 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOJ Department of Justice 

EOIR Executive Office for Immigration Review 

ICEP Immigration Court Evaluation Program 

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service 

OCIJ Office of the Chief Immigration Judge 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

August 11, 2006 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley 

Chairman 

Committee on Finance 

United States Senate 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

The former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) estimated 

that about 7 million unauthorized immigrants resided in the United States 

as of January 2000 and a recent study1

 estimated that the unauthorized 

immigrant population was about 11.5 to 12 million in 2006. These totals 

include those who entered the United States illegally and those who 

entered legally but overstayed their authorized period of stay. Identifying 

this increased number of unauthorized immigrants and adjudicating their 

cases has placed enormous demands on federal agencies responsible for 

enforcing and administering immigration laws. This demand continues to 

grow as an estimated 700,000 to 850,000 immigrants enter illegally or 

overstay their authorized period in this country each year. 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for identifying 

and removing unauthorized immigrants who are in the United States in 

violation of immigration laws. Immigrants identified by DHS as subject to 

removal from the United States are charged by DHS with immigration 

violations and given notice that they are to appear before an immigration 

judge to address the charges.2

 The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) 

Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) through its immigration 

 1

Jeffrey S. Passel, The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population 

in the U.S.: Estimates Based on the March 2005 Current Population Survey, Pew 

Hispanic Center (Washington, D.C.: March 2006).

2

Immigration judges are appointed by the Attorney General for the purpose of conducting 

formal, quasi-judicial proceedings involving the rights of immigrants to enter or remain in 

the United States. 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

courts is responsible for administering and interpreting immigration laws 

and regulations in the cases that come before the courts.3

Within EOIR, the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ) is 

responsible for managing the 53 immigration courts located throughout 

the United States, where over 200 immigration judges adjudicated about 

350,000 individual cases4

 involving alleged immigration law violations in 

fiscal year 2005. The immigration courts are faced with the challenge of 

adjudicating their caseload (all cases awaiting adjudication) in a timely 

manner while at the same time ensuring that the rights of the immigrants 

appearing before them are protected. 

In your request, you expressed interest about the management and 

performance of the immigration courts. In this report, we address the 

following questions: 

1. In recent years, what has been the trend in immigration courts’ 

caseload? 

2. How does OCIJ assign and manage immigration court caseload? 

3. How does EOIR/OCIJ evaluate the immigration courts’ performance? 

To address these objectives, we met with officials from DOJ’s EOIR 

headquarters to obtain information and documentation on caseload 

trends, caseload management, and evaluation of immigration courts. To 

gain a better understanding of the operations and management of 

immigration courts, we also visited four immigration courts—Arlington in 

Arlington, Virginia; Newark in Newark, New Jersey; and two courts in New 

York City, New York. We selected these four courts to include courts 

 3

Until March 1, 2003, there were two DOJ components with immigration responsibilities: 

INS and EOIR. Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, signed into law on November 25, 

2002, INS was transferred to the new DHS as of March 2003. The Attorney General retained 

authority over EOIR, within DOJ, with no immediate changes to EOIR’s components or 

jurisdiction. At DHS, the INS enforcement functions became part of the U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The immigration 

services function of the former INS is housed in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services at DHS. 

4

For this report, the term “cases” refers to proceedings, bond redeterminations, and 

motions to reopen or reconsider (for definitions of these terms see the glossary in app. II). 
Page 3 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

varying in size,5 based on the number of immigration judges. At these 

locations, we observed court proceedings and met with immigration 

judges, court administrators, and attorneys that litigate cases before the 

immigration courts—attorneys from the Office of Chief Counsel of DHS’s 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement and private bar attorneys. We also 

interviewed representatives of the National Association of Immigration 

Judges, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and the American 

Bar Association, Commission on Immigration. For the first objective, we 

obtained and analyzed caseload data contained in EOIR’s case 

management system. To assess the reliability of those data needed to 

answer this objective, we (1) performed electronic testing for obvious 

errors in accuracy and completeness, (2) reviewed related documentation 

about the data and the systems that produced them, including a 

contractor’s report on data verification of the case management system, 

and (3) interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our 

report. For the second objective, we obtained and reviewed policies, 

procedures, and other documents about caseload management, as well as 

staffing data for fiscal years 2000 through 2005. For the third objective, we 

obtained and reviewed policies, procedures, and other documents about 

the evaluation of immigration courts’ performance. We also obtained and 

analyzed EOIR’s case completion goal reports for fiscal years 2001 through 

2005 (as discussed later in this report, our review raised questions about 

these reports) and reviewed the relevant internal control standards for 

such reports. We also reviewed OCIJ’s reports for court evaluations 

conducted in fiscal years 2000 and 2004 and EOIR’s data on complaints 

against immigration judges for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. 

We conducted our work from March 2005 through August 2006 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. (See 

app. I for more details on our scope and methodology.) 

From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2005, despite an increase in the number 

of immigration judges and the number of cases completed by the 

immigration courts, the number of newly filed cases outpaced cases 

completed. During the same time period when the number of on-board 

 5

EOIR categorizes courts according to the number of judges. While some courts only have a 

single judge, small courts have 2 to 4 judges; medium courts, 5 to 14 judges; and large 

courts, 15 or more judges. 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

judges increased about 3 percent, the courts’ caseload increased 39 

percent from about 381,000 cases at the end of fiscal year 2000 to about 

531,000 cases at the end of fiscal year 2005. The average number of cases 

per on-board immigration judge increased about 35 percent, from 1,852 in 

fiscal year 2000 to 2,505 in fiscal year 2005. The number of completed 

cases increased by about 37 percent, from about 253,000 cases in fiscal 

year 2000 to about 347,000 cases in fiscal year 2005. During the same 

period, the number of newly filed cases grew about 44 percent from about 

252,000 to about 363,000. According to EOIR, the increase in the number 

of newly filed cases may be attributed to several factors, including 

enhanced border and interior enforcement actions and changes in 

immigration laws and regulations. Starting in fiscal year 2003, the 

immigration courts set a series of goals aimed at completing all 

proceedings older than 3 years by December 31, 2005. At the end of fiscal 

year 2003, the courts had 13,031 proceedings awaiting adjudication 3 or 

more years. The courts reduced the number of proceedings awaiting 

adjudication for more than 4 years, but did not meet their goal to complete 

all proceedings more than 3 years old by December 31, 2005. On December 

31, 2005, 9,412 proceedings were 3 or more years old. 

OCIJ relies primarily on an automated system to assign cases to 

immigration judges within a court. To balance the caseload among judges, 

OCIJ considers the number of newly filed cases and cases awaiting 

adjudication from prior years, historical data, and the nature of the 

caseload, such as the type of cases prevalent in the court and their 

complexity. To manage its growing caseload, OCIJ, among other means, 

details judges from their assigned court to a court in need of assistance 

and uses available technology such as videoconferencing. According to 

OCIJ, if it recognizes a pattern of sustained need, it recommends that 

EOIR establish a court in a new location. During fiscal years 2000 through 

2005, EOIR established three new immigration courts. 

EOIR/OCIJ evaluates the performance of the immigration courts based on 

the immigration courts’ success in meeting case completion goals and 

through peer evaluations. EOIR documents the case completion goal data 

for the courts’ 11 case types in internal quarterly reports; the courts’ 

success in meeting 4 of the 11 case types that have been identified as 

adjudication priorities is published in DOJ’s annual budget report and 

“Performance and Accountability Report,” which tracks DOJ’s 

performance as required by the Government Performance and Results Act 

of 1993. Our review of EOIR’s internal quarterly reports identified a 

recurring inconsistency between reports as well as other inconsistencies. 

EOIR cited several factors to explain the inconsistencies: the “live,” 
Page 5 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

constantly changing nature of the EOIR data base; the exemption of 

different categories of cases from the case completion goals in different 

quarters; deletions of cases double entered by DHS in the automated 

scheduling system; reconciliations due to changes to date fields to update 

cases in the data base; delays in data entry; and programming errors in the 

calculation of the data. Over time EOIR has changed the criteria for cases 

covered by case completion goals and only maintained the queries for its 

current reporting process. Consequently, we could not replicate EOIR’s 

past reports to determine the accuracy of the case completion goal data. 

The inconsistencies indicate that EOIR should maintain appropriate 

documentation to demonstrate the accuracy of data reported by EOIR. A 

second means EOIR uses to evaluate the courts’ performance is peer 

evaluation-–its Immigration Court Evaluation Program (ICEP). The ICEP 

team conducts an onsite visit where it evaluates court operations 

including the court’s organizational structure and workflow processes and 

prepares a report of its findings and recommendations. 

To more accurately and consistently reflect immigration courts’ progress 

in the timely adjudication of immigration cases, we recommend that the 

Director of EOIR (1) maintain appropriate documentation to demonstrate 

the accuracy of case completion goal reports and (2) clearly state what 

cases are being counted in the reports. 

After reviewing a draft of this report, EOIR responded in an e-mail that it 

concurred with GAO’s recommendations. EOIR also provided technical 

comments, which we have included as appropriate. 

Under the authority of the Attorney General, EOIR interprets and 

administers federal immigration laws by conducting formal quasi-judicial 

proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. EOIR 

consists of three primary components: OCIJ, which is responsible for 

managing the immigration courts located throughout the United States 

where immigration judges6

 adjudicate individual cases; the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA), which primarily conducts appellate reviews of 

 6

As attorneys, immigration judges are appointed under Schedule A in the excepted service. 

To be minimally qualified, an applicant must have a Bachelor of Laws or a Juris Doctor 

degree and be duly licensed and authorized to practice law as an attorney under the laws of 

a state, territory, or the District of Columbia; be a U.S. citizen; and have a minimum of 

7 years relevant post-bar admission legal experience at the time the application is 

submitted, with one year experience equivalent to the GS-15 level in the federal service. 

Background 
Page 6 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

immigration judge decisions;7 and the Office of the Chief Administrative 

Hearing Officer, which adjudicates immigration-related employment cases 

such as employer sanctions for employment of unauthorized immigrants. 

EOIR was established on January 9, 1983, as a result of an internal DOJ 

reorganization. This reorganization combined the BIA with the 

immigration judge function previously performed by the former INS. The 

Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer was added in 1987. A 

Director who reports directly to the Deputy Attorney General heads EOIR. 

EOIR’s mission is to provide for the fair, expeditious, and uniform 

interpretation and application of immigration law. In support of this 

mission, one of EOIR’s strategic goals is to adjudicate all cases in a timely 

manner while assuring due process and fair treatment for all parties. 

According to its strategic plan for fiscal years 2005 through 2010, EOIR 

plans to accomplish this goal by, among other things, (1) eliminating case 

backlog by the end of fiscal year 2008,8

 (2) implementing improved 

caseload management practices, and (3) adjudicating cases within 

specified time frames. 

As of October 1, 2005, EOIR had 1,182 authorized full-time permanent 

positions. OCIJ was the largest of the three primary components with 789 

positions. The majority of these 789 positions (745) were in the 

immigration courts located throughout the nation. Of these 745 positions,9

225 were immigration judges.10 The remaining court staff included 45 

 7

BIA also hears appeals of certain decisions made by DHS district directors or other 

immigration officials. 

8

According to EOIR, it plans to systematically reduce the number of cases pending longer 

than 1 year in the immigration courts. 

9

In fiscal year 2005, the immigration courts also had 31 judicial law clerks who assisted 

immigration judges by researching case law and providing other legal support as required. 

10As of May 1, 2006, there were 230 authorized immigration judges. 
Page 7 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

court/deputy court administrators, 367 assistants/clerks,11 and 108 court 

interpreters.12

OCIJ provides overall program direction, articulates policies and 

procedures, and establishes priorities for the immigration courts. OCIJ is 

headed by a Chief Immigration Judge who carries out these 

responsibilities with the assistance and support of two Deputy Chief 

Immigration Judges and nine Assistant Chief Immigration Judges (ACIJ).13

The ACIJs serve as the principal liaison between OCIJ headquarters and 

the immigration courts and have supervisory authority over the 

immigration judges, the court administrators, and judicial law clerks.14 At 

the court level, court administrators manage the daily court operations as 

well as the administrative staff. Currently there are 53 immigration courts 

including 17 courts that are co-located with a detention center, 

correctional facility, or service processing center and a court located at 

EOIR headquarters in Falls Church, Virginia,15 and numerous other hearing 

locations.16 The sizes of the immigration courts vary. In fiscal year 2005, 

the smallest of the 53 immigration courts (Fishkill in New York) consisted 

of 2 authorized legal assistants.17 In contrast, the largest court (New York 

 11The following staff is included: clerks, legal technicians, supervisory legal technicians, 

and administrative assistants. 

12The primary function of the interpreters is to interpret in a manner that allows the 

immigrant, immigration judge, and attorneys to understand the proceedings as if no 

language barrier existed. However, according to EOIR, most interpreters perform clerical 

tasks when they are not interpreting. In addition to the authorized interpreters, the 

immigration courts use contract interpreters to provide language translation. EOIR 

estimates that about 85 percent of the courts’ cases require the use of an interpreter. 

13As of May 1, 2006, three of the nine ACIJ positions were vacant. 

14While the ACIJs have supervisory authority for the immigration judges, the judges are not 

subject to a performance appraisal system (excluded by the Office of Personnel 

Management pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 430.202(c)). The ACIJs also do not review the 

immigration judges’ decisions, which are reviewed only on appeal before the BIA. 

15Unlike the other immigration courts, the headquarters immigration court does not accept 

the filing of charging documents. Charging documents are filed at the other immigration 

courts. The headquarters court assists the other courts by adjudicating some of their cases. 

16In addition to the immigration courts, EOIR has designated other locations where 

hearings can take place. EOIR refers to these locations as hearing locations. 

17The Fishkill immigration court does not have an immigration judge authorized. Rather, 

the judge in the Ulster immigration court in New York normally hears cases from that 

court. However, the Ulster judge position is currently vacant; therefore, cases from both 

the Fishkill and Ulster courts are heard by judges from the New York City immigration 

court. In addition, the Fishkill court shares a court administrator with two other courts. 
Page 8 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

City in New York) consisted of the following authorized staff: 

27 immigration judges, 1 court administrator, 1 deputy court administrator, 

46 assistants/clerks, and 8 court interpreters. 

The immigration judges are responsible for hearing all cases that come 

before them, and act independently in deciding the cases. They hear a 

wide range of immigration related cases that consist primarily of removal 

proceedings18 conducted to determine whether certain immigrants are 

subject to removal from the country.19 If DHS alleges a violation of 

immigration law(s) that is subject to adjudication by the immigration 

courts, it serves the immigrant with a charging document, ordering the 

individual to appear before an immigration judge. The charging document 

is also filed with the immigration court having jurisdiction over the 

immigrant,20 and advises the immigrant of, among other things, the nature 

of the proceeding; the alleged act(s) that violated the law; the right to an 

attorney at no expense to the government; and the consequences of failing 

to appear at scheduled hearings.21 Removal proceedings generally require 

an immigration judge to make: (1) a determination of the immigrant’s 

removability from the United States and (2), thereafter, if the immigrant 

applies, a decision whether the immigrant is eligible for a form(s) of relief 

from removal such as asylum, adjustment of status, cancellation of 

removal, or other remedies, or voluntary departure, which is an alternative 

 18In fiscal year 2005, proceedings accounted for about 93 percent of all cases, with bond 

redeterminations and motions accounting for about 5 and 2 percent, respectively. About 

99 percent of the proceedings were removal proceedings. See the glossary in app. II for 

definitions of proceedings, bond redeterminations, and motions to reopen or reconsider. 

19Beginning April 1, 1997, the distinction between exclusion and deportation proceedings 

was eliminated, and immigrants subject to removal from the United States were all placed 

in removal proceedings. Thus, according to EOIR, the removal proceeding is generally the 

sole procedure for determining whether an immigrant is inadmissible, deportable, or 

eligible for relief from removal. Certain cases are subject to pre-April 1, 1997, legal 

standards and are therefore still referred to as exclusion or deportation proceedings. 

20The immigration court that receives the case has jurisdiction over the case unless a 

change of venue has been requested by the immigrant or DHS. Once a case has been 

assigned to an immigration judge, only the assigned judge may rule on a motion for a 

change of venue, unless the judge is unavailable to complete his or her duties. 

21EOIR does not have jurisdiction over an immigrant’s case unless DHS files a charging 

document with EOIR. 
Page 9 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

to removal.22 Once an immigration judge orders the removal of an 

immigrant, DHS is responsible for carrying out the removal. 

 22According to EOIR, in most removal proceedings, immigrants concede that they are 

removable, but then apply for one or more forms of relief from removal. Immigration law 

provides relief from removal to immigrants who meet specific eligibility criteria. The 

immigrant has the burden of proving that he or she is eligible for relief under the law, and 

usually that he or she deserves such relief as an exercise of discretion. For definitions of 

asylum, adjustment of status, cancellation of removal, and voluntary departure, see the 

glossary in app. II. 
Page 10 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

Figure 1: Steps in the Immigration Court Removal Proceedings Process

As shown in figure 1, immigration court removal proceedings generally 

involve an initial master calendar hearing and, subsequently, an individual 

merits hearing. During the master calendar hearing, the immigration judge 

is to ensure that the immigrant understands the immigration violation 

charges and provide the immigrant information on available free of charge 

or low-cost legal representation in the area. During the individual merits 

hearing, the merits of the case are presented before the immigration judge 

by the immigrant, or the immigrant’s legal representative, and the DHS 

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data.

Master calendar

hearing 

Individual merits

hearing 

Immigration judge 

decision

Voluntary

departure Removal/deportation Termination of

proceedings 

DHS, immigrant, or 

both appeal to BIA 

BIA decision 

DHS issues charging 

document - Notice To 

Appear before an 

immigration judge

Immigrant appeals 

to federal court 

Relief
Page 11 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

attorney who is prosecuting the case. DHS must prove that an immigrant is 

in the United States unlawfully and should be removed. In most cases, the 

immigration judge issues an oral decision at the conclusion of the 

individual merits hearing. The immigration judge may order the alien 

removed or may grant relief. If the immigration judge decides that 

removability has not been established by DHS, he or she may terminate 

the proceedings. Once a case is completed, if the immigrant or DHS 

disagrees with the immigration judge’s decision, either party or both 

parties may appeal the decision to the BIA. If the BIA ruling is adverse to 

the immigrant, the immigrant generally may file an appeal in the federal 

court system. According to EOIR, if DHS disagrees with the BIA’s ruling, in 

rare instances, the case may be referred to the Attorney General for 

review. 

From fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2005, the number of newly filed 

cases outpaced cases completed. Consequently, the immigration courts’ 

caseload increased about 39 percent, from about 381,000 cases at the end 

of fiscal year 2000 to about 531,000 cases at the end of fiscal year 2005. 

During the same period, in 4 of 6 years, the number of newly filed cases 

received was greater than the number of cases completed. The number of 

newly filed cases grew about 44 percent, from about 252,000 in fiscal year 

2000, to about 363,000 in fiscal year 2005. On the other hand, the number 

of completed cases increased about 37 percent, from about 253,000 cases 

in fiscal year 2000, to about 347,000 cases in fiscal year 2005. (See fig. 2.) 

Immigration Court 

Caseload Continues 

to Increase; Some 

Progress Has Been 

Made in Completing 

Oldest Proceedings 

Awaiting Adjudication 

Immigration Courts’ 

Caseload Increases as 

More Newly Filed Cases 

Are Received than Cases 

Completed 
Page 12 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

Figure 2: Immigration Court Caseload versus Completed Cases, All Courts, Fiscal 

Years 2000 through 2005 

According to EOIR officials, the annual increase in newly filed cases can 

be driven by several factors. These factors include enhanced border and 

interior enforcement actions, changes in immigration laws and 

regulations, and emerging or special situations. 

The greatest increase (about 47,000 or 16 percent) in the number of cases 

completed by the immigration courts occurred between fiscal years 2004 

and 2005. This increase is in large part because of an increase in the 
Page 13 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

number of in absentia decisions—in cases where a judge orders an 

immigrant removed from the United States when the immigrant has not 

appeared for a scheduled removal hearing.23 The number of in absentia

cases increased about 80 percent from about 70,000 cases in fiscal year 

2004 to about 126,000 cases in fiscal year 2005. According to EOIR 

officials, in absentia cases require less time to complete because there is 

limited or no conflicting evidence for the court to hear and review when 

the immigrant does not appear to respond to the charge of removability. 

While there has been an increase in the number of immigration judges 

since fiscal year 2000, the immigration court caseload has grown at a much 

more rapid pace. The number of on-board immigration judges increased by 

6 (about 3 percent), from 206 to 21224 between fiscal years 2000 and 2005, 

while the immigration courts’ caseload increased about 39 percent during 

the same period. As a result, the average number of cases per on-board 

immigration judge has increased slightly more than 35 percent, from 1,852 

in fiscal year 2000 to 2,505 in fiscal year 2005 (see fig. 3). In particular, the 

case-per-judge ratios were generally higher in southwestern border courts 

where the proportion of in absentia cases is also among the highest in the 

country. For example, in fiscal year 2005, the Harlingen and San Antonio 

immigration courts in Texas each had a case-per-judge ratio of over 8,000 

compared to the average for all courts of 2,505. 

 23According to EOIR, there was an increase in the number of DHS charging documents that 

did not have the address of the immigrant, which, in turn, resulted in an in absentia

decision. By regulation, if the immigrant fails to provide his or her address as required by 

law, actual written notice is not required for an immigration judge to proceed with an in 

absentia hearing. 

24During the same period, the number of authorized immigration judges increased about 

7 percent, from 211 to 225. 
Page 14 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

Figure 3: Immigration Court Caseload Compared to Average Number of Cases per 

On-board Immigration Judge, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005 

OCIJ has taken steps to reduce the age of proceedings awaiting 

adjudication. According to an OCIJ memorandum, in March 2003, the 

immigration courts established a priority for completing its older 

proceedings. The courts set a series of goals to complete all proceedings 

older than 4 years; since then, they have introduced additional goals 

targeting proceedings older than 3 years. OCIJ’s goals are summarized in 

table 1. 

OCIJ Set Goals to Reduce 

the Age of Proceedings 

Awaiting Adjudication; 

despite Some Progress, 

OCIJ Had Not Met Its 

Goals 
Page 15 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

Table 1: OCIJ Goals to Eliminate Proceedings Awaiting Adjudication over 3 Years 

Old 

Age of proceeding Completion deadline 

Greater than 6 years September 30, 2003 

Greater than 5 years March 31, 2004 

Greater than 4 years November 30, 2004 

Greater than 3 and 1⁄2 years June 30, 2005 

Greater than 3 years December 31, 2005 

Source: GAO based on EOIR data. 

Our analysis of the immigration courts’ proceedings data shows that while 

the courts have achieved success in reducing the number of proceedings 

older than 4 years between fiscal year 2003 and December 31, 2005, the 

courts did not meet their goal of completing all proceedings more than 

3 years old by December 31, 2005 (see table 2). At the end of fiscal year 

2003, the courts had 13,031 proceedings awaiting adjudication 3 or more 

years. Between fiscal year 2003 and December 31, 2005, the number of 

proceedings 6 or more years old was cut about 48 percent, from 1,058 to 

547; the number of proceedings between 5 and 6 years old dropped to 

about a quarter of its fiscal year 2003 level from 2,375 to 547; and the 

number of proceedings between 4 and 5 years old decreased about 

37 percent (3,185 to 2,010). However, at the end of December 2005, 

9,412 proceedings remained open after 3 or more years.25

Table 2: Number of Proceedings Awaiting Adjudication 3 or More Years, by Age, All Courts, End of Fiscal Years 2003 through 

2005 and as of December 31, 2005 

Age of proceeding 

 3 - 3.5 years 3.5 - 4 years 4 - 5 years 5 - 6 years 6 or more years Total

September 30, 2003 3,914 2,499 3,185 2,375 1,058 13,031

September 30, 2004 5,878 2,959 2,122 742 619 12,320

September 30, 2005 5,607 3,246 2,395 625 621 12,494

December 31, 2005 3,945 2,363 2,010 547 547 9,412

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. 

 25According to EOIR, there has been an increase in the number of visa petitions pending at 

DHS for beneficiaries who are also in removal proceedings. An immigration judge cannot 

proceed on the immigrant’s request for relief from removal in the form of adjustment of 

status until the visa petition has been adjudicated by DHS. 
Page 16 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

OCIJ monitors immigration courts’ caseload to assign cases to judges 

within a court. According to OCIJ, in general, the need for court personnel 

is driven by the immigration courts’ caseload. Specifically, OCIJ considers 

the number of newly filed cases and cases awaiting adjudication from 

prior years, historical data, and the nature of the caseload, such as the type 

of cases prevalent in the court and their complexity. As newly filed cases 

are received, OCIJ said that it evaluates the impact of these cases on the 

allocation of resources at the immigration courts. For example, according 

to OCIJ, through experience, it has learned that the immigration courts 

will have difficulty meeting and maintaining its case adjudication time 

goals when immigration judges have more than 1,050 and 1,500 newly filed 

cases involving non-detained and detained immigrants, respectively. 

Therefore, OCIJ attempts to keep the list of cases that appears on the 

judges’ calendars under these levels. In addition, on the basis of feedback 

from the courts, the responsible ACIJ notifies OCIJ headquarters of any 

unexpected increases in newly filed cases in a given court due to emerging 

or special situations, such as mass migration or enhanced border 

enforcement actions. According to OCIJ, if a pattern of need emerges, it 

reassigns personnel or provides other assistance, if available. 

OCIJ noted that the judges’ calendar of cases might vary among courts due 

to the type and complexity of the cases received. Thus, the case-per-judge 

ratios will be higher in some courts than others. Courts with a high 

number of change of venue cases (cases that are transferred from one 

court to another court) and/or in absentia cases that require less time to 

complete have a higher volume of cases per judge than courts with more 

merits asylum cases and other complex cases awaiting adjudication. For 

example, judges in the Harlingen and San Antonio immigration courts 

located in Texas are assigned a higher number of cases because these 

courts have a high number of change of venue and in absentia cases 

adjudicated in a given year compared to the San Francisco, California, 

New York City, New York, and Miami, Florida, immigration courts, where 

OCIJ Monitors 

Caseload to Assign 

Cases to Judges 

Accordingly, and Uses 

a Variety of Means to 

Address Growing 

Caseload 

OCIJ Monitors Caseload 

and Assigns Cases to 

Judges within Courts 
Page 17 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

most cases are merits asylum hearings that require more time to complete. 

In fiscal year 2005, judges in the Harlingen and San Antonio immigration 

courts had, on average, over 8,000 cases compared to judges in San 

Francisco, New York City, and Miami immigration courts who had, on 

average, about 1,200, 1,500, and 2,400 cases, respectively. 

Within each immigration court, newly filed cases are generally assigned to 

immigration judges through an automated process; however, some 

flexibility exists. After a charging document has been filed, either DHS 

through an interactive scheduling system or immigration court staff are to 

enter data on newly filed cases in EOIR’s case management system.26 The 

case management system automatically assigns newly filed cases within 

each court on the basis of the next available judge’s calendar, rotating 

through all of the judges to equalize the number of cases assigned to each 

immigration judge. In addition, OCIJ stated that court staff has the 

flexibility to manually assign newly filed cases to a specific immigration 

judge rather than use the automated system. For example, the court 

administrator may manually schedule some cases to correct inequities that 

occurred in the number and type of cases that were assigned to a judge by 

the automated system. Also, cases that are re-entering the immigration 

court system are generally manually assigned to the immigration judge 

who had initially adjudicated the case.27 Further, if a judge already has a 

heavy caseload, OCIJ officials said that an ACIJ, through authority 

delegated by the Chief Immigration Judge, may decide to exclude a judge 

from assignment of newly filed cases through the automated system. 

EOIR’s Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2005 through 2010 states that it 

intends to consider changes in workload, establish better methods to 

project future workload, and adjust resources accordingly. Additionally, 

EOIR proposes to refine its current caseload management practices to 

ensure that cases move through the system as efficiently as possible. For 

example, EOIR plans to study the rates at which immigrants are failing to 

appear at their court proceedings and to schedule cases so that court time 

is used more efficiently. EOIR officials stated they are in the early stages 

of implementing the objectives outlined in the Strategic Plan. 

 26With the exception of two courts, the same case management system is used. Courts in 

Arlington, Virginia, and Seattle, Washington, are piloting a new case management system. 

27A case that has a motion to reopen or a case remanded from the BIA is usually assigned to 

the immigration judge that had initially adjudicated the case. 
Page 18 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

OCIJ’s process for managing court caseload is to monitor the caseload of 

each immigration court to identify those courts that are unable to meet 

their established goals for timely case adjudication, and provide assistance 

to these courts in meeting their goals. According to OCIJ, it primarily 

addresses immigration judge staff shortages at immigration courts through 

detailing judges from their assigned court to a court in need of assistance. 

Details usually occur to cover situations such as emerging needs that 

result in a surge of newly filed cases; staff shortages in a court due to 

illness, retirements, or annual leave; or the need to hear cases in other 

designated hearing locations. OCIJ advertises the detail opportunities to 

solicit volunteers. In selecting from the judges that volunteer,28 OCIJ said 

that it considers the needs of these immigration judges’ respective 

assigned courts. Volunteers from courts that have heavy caseloads and are 

not meeting their goals for timely case adjudication will usually not be 

selected. According to EOIR, it does not maintain readily available data on 

the number and duration of immigration judge details. 

OCIJ also uses available technology to address staff shortages. Many 

courts have the capability to use videoconferencing to conduct 

immigration hearings in other courts and locations such as detention 

centers and correctional facilities throughout the country. As of May 1, 

2006, EOIR had videoconferencing capability at 47 of the 53 immigration 

courts, and 77 other locations where immigration hearings were 

conducted. According to OCIJ, videoconferencing allows immigration 

judges in one court to assist another immigration court with an unusually 

heavy caseload, on an ad hoc basis. For example, the two immigration 

judges in the court located at EOIR headquarters in Falls Church, Virginia, 

use videoconferencing to address short-term resource needs as they arise 

in the other immigration courts nationwide. OCIJ said that it will use this 

technology where available and feasible until this remedy is deemed 

insufficient to meet the needs of the courts. OCIJ also said that it has used 

videoconferencing as an interim measure while it assesses the ongoing 

need to establish a new immigration court. According to EOIR’s fiscal year 

2005 performance work plans, ACIJs were expected to increase the usage 

of video technology to address case requirement needs of immigration 

courts. 

In addition, EOIR transfers responsibility for some hearing locations 

among immigration courts to more evenly distribute the caseload among 

 28OCIJ will select judges for details if it does not get volunteers. 

OCIJ Details Judges, Uses 

Technology, Transfers 

Responsibility for Hearing 

Locations, and 

Recommends Establishing 

New Courts to Address 

Growing Caseload 
Page 19 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

immigration judges. For example, in July 2003, EOIR redistributed the 

Detroit, Michigan, immigration court’s caseload by transferring cases from 

Cincinnati and Cleveland, Ohio, to the Arlington, Virginia, court; and cases 

from Louisville, Kentucky, to the Memphis, Tennessee, court.29 According 

to EOIR, unless the parties are notified otherwise, immigration hearings 

continue to be conducted at the same hearing locations in each of these 

states, with immigration judges traveling to those locations or holding 

hearings by videoconference when appropriate. EOIR stated that these 

transfers are infrequent. 

When a pattern of sustained need emerges, OCIJ officials said that they 

recommend to EOIR establishing a court in a new location, usually a 

previous hearing location—especially if there is a significant distance to 

travel, along with significant travel costs. A permanent court is usually 

recommended if the hearing location can no longer be effectively covered 

by an existing immigration court (e.g., if a court fails to meet its goals for 

timely case adjudication). However, according to OCIJ, whether a new 

court can be established depends on the available resources. During fiscal 

years 2000 through 2005, EOIR established three new immigration courts.30

For example, in July 2005, EOIR established the newest immigration court 

in Salt Lake City, Utah, which was previously a hearing location of the 

Denver immigration court in Colorado. EOIR recently said that it will open 

a new court in Cleveland, Ohio, in August 2006 and is requesting funds to 

open four additional courts in fiscal year 2007. 

 29According to EOIR, in fiscal year 2003, the Detroit immigration court had 5,916 newly 

filed cases including 603 for Cincinnati, 1,385 for Cleveland, and 553 for Louisville. The 

Detroit court, which had three immigration judges, lacked the physical facilities to expand 

beyond the three judges. To address the Detroit court’s large caseload, OCIJ added an 

additional judge to the Arlington court and transferred the Cincinnati and Cleveland cases 

to the Arlington court. The Louisville cases were transferred to the Memphis court, which 

had two judges with 1,420 newly filed cases. 

30According to EOIR, if a new immigration court opens, the Chief Immigration Judge will 

announce transfer opportunities and set a deadline for transfer requests. The Chief 

Immigration Judge will consider the transfer requests in order of seniority. EOIR said that 

it also closed two immigration courts during this period. 
Page 20 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

EOIR/OCIJ evaluates the immigration courts’ performance based on their 

success in meeting case completion goals and through peer evaluations of 

court operations. In addition, EOIR/OCIJ monitors complaints against 

immigration judges. 

To assist in ensuring that the immigration courts adjudicate cases fairly 

and in a timely manner—one of the agency’s stated strategic objectives31— 

EOIR has established target time frames for each of OCIJ’s 11 case types.32

Each case type has an associated case completion goal (the percentage of 

cases to be completed within the established time frame). (See table 3 for 

a list of case types and their corresponding goals.) The case completion 

goals were formulated beginning in June 2000, when EOIR’s Director 

recognized that not all case types had completion time frames. Some case 

types had completion time frames established by law; others had longstanding agency completion time frames, while some had none. 

Consequently, EOIR’s Director solicited input from OCIJ regarding the 

impact and feasibility of establishing completion goals across all case 

types. OCIJ, in turn, solicited input from the immigration judges and court 

administrators. Over a 2-year period, EOIR collaborated with OCIJ to 

develop case completion goals for immigration courts covering the 11 case 

types. In May 2002, OCIJ formally implemented these goals. The courts’ 

success in meeting the goals for 4 of the 11 case types have been identified 

as adjudication priorities and are published in DOJ’s annual budget report 

and “Report on Performance and Accountability.”33 The “Report on 

 31The goals were also established to assist management in identifying areas that need 

improvement and in allocating resources better. 

32The case types are based on the status of the immigrant, for example, whether the 

immigrant is detained or non-detained and whether the immigrant has filed an application 

for relief. 

33In these reports, EOIR combined two of the four case types. 

EOIR’s Case 

Completion Goal 

Reports Contain 

Some Inconsistencies; 

Peer Evaluations 

Used to Evaluate 

Court Operations 

EOIR’s Case Completion 

Goal Reports Contain 

Some Inconsistencies 
Page 21 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

Performance and Accountability” presents DOJ’s performance progress as 

required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.34

Table 3: Current Targeted Case Completion Goals and Completion Rates 

Case type Definition Time goal 

Percent of cases to be 

completed within the 

time goal

Detained without 

applications for relief 

A detained immigrant does not request relief from the removal. 30 daysa 90

Non-detained without 

applications for relief 

A non-detained immigrant does not request relief from the 

removal. 

240 daysb 90

Credible fear review An immigrant seeking to enter the United States does not have 

any documents or valid documents to enter but expresses a 

“credible fear” of persecution or torture or an intention to apply 

for asylum; the immigrant is referred for an interview with a DHS 

asylum officer. If the asylum officer believes that the immigrant 

has not established a credible fear and a supervisory asylum 

officer concurs, the immigrant may request a review of that 

determination by an immigration judge. If the immigration judge 

determines there is “credible fear,” the immigrant will be placed 

in removal proceedings to apply for asylum. 

7 daysc 100

Claimed status review An immigrant claims to be a U.S. citizen, to have been lawfully 

admitted for permanent residence, to have been admitted as a 

refugee, or to have been granted asylum, and DHS determines 

that the immigrant has no such claim; the immigrant can obtain a 

review by the immigration judge. 

120 daysb

 90

Detained with 

applications for relief 

other than expedited 

asylum 

A detained immigrant requests relief from removal for reasons 

other than that of expedited asylum. 

120 daysa 90

Non-detained with 

applications for relief 

other than expedited 

asylum 

A non-detained immigrant requests relief from removal for 

reasons other than expedited asylum. 

240 daysb 60

Institutional hearing 

program 

The removal process for an immigrant incarcerated by federal, 

state, or municipal correctional authorities as a result of a 

conviction for a criminal offense. The hearings are held inside 

correctional institutions prior to the immigrant completing his or 

her criminal sentence. 

Prior to 

releasea

90

 34The four case types identified as adjudication priorities for OCIJ are immigration court 

cases involving (1) detained immigrants that do not file an application for relief, (2) 

immigrants seeking expedited asylum affirmatively as a form of relief, (3) immigrants 

seeking expedited asylum defensively as a form of relief, and (4) the Institutional Hearing 

Program. 
Page 22 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

Case type Definition Time goal 

Percent of cases to be 

completed within the 

time goal

Motions to reopen Either the immigrant or DHS requests the reopening of a case 

previously heard by an immigration judge. The motion asks the 

judge to consider newly filed or previously unavailable facts or 

evidence in a case. 

60 daysb 90

Custody hearings bonds A detained immigrant’s release from custody is contingent on 

posting a bond to ensure the immigrant’s appearance at the 

immigration hearing. The immigrant asks the immigration judge 

to reconsider the bond set by DHS. 

3 business 

daysb

100

Expedited asylum 

affirmative 

An immigrant requests asylum by filing an asylum application 

with DHS Asylum Office. If the asylum application is not 

approved by DHS, the asylum application is referred to EOIR 

within 75 days of filing. 

180 daysc 90

Expedited asylum 

defensive 

An immigrant requests asylum by filing an asylum application 

directly to EOIR in removal proceedings. 

180 daysc 90

Source: GAO based on EOIR data. 

a

A long-standing agency goal established prior to the formal implementation of the case completion 

goals. 

b

An internal agency goal established during the formal case completion goal implementation process. 

c

A goal established by statute and/or regulation. 

EOIR documents the immigration courts’ success in meeting the case 

completion goals for the 11 case types in internal quarterly reports. 

According to EOIR, the case completion goal reports are intended to 

measure whether the courts are meeting their completion goals, not to 

define the total caseload of the courts (all cases awaiting adjudication). 35

In developing these reports, EOIR management decided to exclude from 

the measurement certain categories of cases that, due to extenuating 

circumstances, are not expected to be completed within the established 

goals. For example, DHS is responsible for conducting background and 

security checks on all immigrants in immigration court proceedings. Since 

 35EOIR’s Office of Planning Analysis and Technology uses data from its case management 

system to calculate how well the courts are meeting the case completion goals. The office 

uses a structure query language to convert data from its case management system and to 

generate the case completion goal data. Structure query language is a standardized 

language for retrieving and updating data in relational databases and tables, which allows a 

user to generate counts and statistics, select records or fields, and merge tables. For each 

of the 11 case types, EOIR’s queries count the total number of cases awaiting adjudication 

at the start of a quarter, the total number of newly filed cases, the total number of 

completions (both cases awaiting adjudication at the start of a quarter and newly filed 

cases), the total number of cases that were completed within goal, and the total number of 

cases awaiting adjudication at the end of a quarter. 
Page 23 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

the courts cannot grant an applicant relief from removal until all checks 

have been favorably completed, these cases are exempted from case 

completion goals. As a result, the number of cases covered by the 

quarterly reports is less than the total court caseload. Additionally, 

depending on what cases are excluded from the case completion goals, the 

makeup of the cases included in the reports can change from one quarter 

to the next. These facts are not clearly reflected in the reports themselves. 

Our preliminary review of EOIR’s quarterly reports identified 

inconsistencies in some reports. For example, we noted a recurring 

inconsistency between reports: the number of cases awaiting adjudication 

at the end of a quarter was not the same as the number of cases awaiting 

adjudication at the beginning of the following quarter. EOIR provided 

several reasons for the inconsistency, as follows: (1) the EOIR case 

management system is a live data base that is constantly changing as 

events occur to immigration cases in the courts; (2) changes occur to the 

number of cases awaiting adjudication from one quarter to another when 

categories of cases are exempted from the case completion goals, since 

once a case is exempted it is no longer included in the reports; (3) cases 

double entered by DHS in the automated scheduling system were deleted; 

(4) reconciliations were necessary due to changes to date fields to update 

cases in the data base; (5) delays in data entry occurred; and (6) 

programming errors occurred in the calculation of the data. 

We could not evaluate the reasonableness of EOIR’s explanation; however, 

EOIR’s reasons did not appear to explain completely the inconsistency 

between the number of cases awaiting adjudication at the end of the 

quarter and the number of cases awaiting adjudication at the beginning of 

the following quarter. EOIR said that the agency does not use the quarterly 

reports to monitor and report on cases awaiting adjudication; rather, other 

comprehensive reports serve that purpose. According to EOIR, the case 

completion goal reports have a specific purpose: to report solely on the 

percentage of cases completed within the goals for the appropriate 

reporting period. EOIR stated that it evaluates the case completion goal 

data against other sources of data to ensure the accuracy of the case 

completion goal data prior to release within the agency, following 

established protocols. 

We also identified inconsistencies in a 2002 report where the reported 

total number of completions did not equal the sum of its components. 

EOIR responded to our inquiry about this inconsistency that a 

programmer had used the wrong end date for a quarter and therefore 

retrieved more cases than should have been included. 
Page 24 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

EOIR has changed its criteria for compiling the case completion goal 

reports over time, as EOIR management has established new 

specifications to identify the cases to be included in the case completion 

goals. When the agency approves categories of cases to be excluded from 

the reports, the queries used to run the reports are updated accordingly. 

EOIR reported that it maintains the historical documentation of the 

changes it has made to the reports through memos approved by EOIR 

management outlining each change in the case completion goal criteria. 

However, EOIR does not maintain the individual queries used to run each 

of the prior quarterly reports; it only maintains the current set of queries. 

As a result, we could not replicate the past reports to determine the 

accuracy of the case completion goal data. The inconsistencies indicate 

that EOIR should maintain appropriate documentation to demonstrate the 

accuracy of data reported by EOIR. 

Another means that EOIR/OCIJ uses to evaluate its courts’ performance is 

peer evaluation—its Immigration Court Evaluation Program (ICEP). The 

ICEP was established in July 1997 to evaluate court operations based on 

objectives established by OCIJ, identify challenges to achieving agency 

goals, and recommend appropriate corrective measures.36 The evaluation 

program seeks to make recommendations for improving court operations 

by evaluating the courts’ organizational structure, caseload, and workflow 

processes to assess the efficiency of the court in accomplishing its 

mission. Judges’ individual hearing decisions are the only aspect of court 

operations that are not evaluated. 

OCIJ established a Court Evaluation Unit (CEU) to manage the 

coordination and operation of the court evaluation program. The CEU 

selects courts to be evaluated, notifies the courts being selected, prepares 

an evaluation schedule, and sends out pre-evaluation questionnaires. 

While the Chief Immigration Judge selects the evaluation team members, 

the CEU is responsible for training the evaluation team as well as 

identifying a team leader. The evaluation team is comprised of volunteers 

of one or more immigration judge(s), court administrator(s), court 

 36Its predecessor was the Field Office Case Management Review Program, which was 

primarily a file review that had been in existence since 1988. According to EOIR, the Chief 

Immigration Judge determined that this evaluation program was insufficient in scope to 

adequately fulfill his responsibility for evaluating the performance of the courts, making 

appropriate reports and inspections, and taking corrective action where indicated. As such, 

the ICEP program was developed to give the Chief Immigration Judge increased oversight 

of the courts. 

Peer Evaluations Used to 

Evaluate Court Operations 
Page 25 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

interpreter(s), and legal technician(s). The participation of team members 

from diverse courts and positions is intended to facilitate the exchange of 

information regarding best practices of court operations. The size of the 

evaluation team depends on the size of the court being evaluated. For 

example, in fiscal year 2004, the team that evaluated the Bradenton 

immigration court in Florida, a small court with 2 authorized full-time 

permanent immigration judges, consisted of 3 team members, while the 

team that evaluated the Miami immigration court in Florida, a large court 

with 21 authorized full-time permanent immigration judges, had 13 

members. OCIJ has established an evaluation program cycle in which 

approximately 10 to 12 courts have been evaluated per year. Each court 

has typically been evaluated approximately once every 4 years. 

During the onsite visit, the evaluation team gathers information about the 

court under review in a variety of ways. The evaluation team conducts 

interviews with local court personnel, DHS officials, and members of the 

private bar. Evaluation team members select and review a random sample 

of court files and administrative records maintained by the court. While 

conducting interviews and reviewing court documentation, the evaluation 

team assesses aspects of court operations: immigration court initiatives, 

security, case management and case processing, DHS/immigration bar 

relations, administrative operations, and database management. 

As shown in figure 5, the ICEP is comprised of a five-stage process. 

Following the week long onsite visit, the evaluation team summarizes the 

evaluation findings and recommendations and prepares a draft report for 

the Chief Immigration Judge’s review. Within 10 business days of receipt 

of the draft report, the evaluated court is to submit written comments on 

the draft report.37 After reviewing the draft report and court’s comments, 

the Chief Immigration Judge prepares an action plan addressing the draft 

report’s specific recommendations—the action plan clarifies which 

corrective actions will be taken, who will be responsible for completing 

that action, and the date by which the action must be completed. 

Approximately 3 months after completion of the action plan, the court 

must submit a written “Self-Certification” attesting to the actions taken to 

 37The court response is prepared by the court administrator and the liaison immigration 

judge for the court being evaluated. Judges serve on a rotational basis as the liaison judge 

to act as the point of contact regarding topics and issues between the immigration judges 

and the responsible ACIJ, the court administrator, the local private bar, the local DHS 

office, and other appropriate local contacts such as local law schools. Liaison judges do not 

have any supervisory responsibilities. 
Page 26 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

implement the action plan.38 After receipt of the self-certification, the CEU 

drafts a final report for the Deputy Chief Immigration Judge’s signature. 

After the court evaluation process is complete, the final evaluation report 

is distributed to the EOIR Director and Deputy Director, the Chief 

Immigration Judge, the Deputy Chief Immigration Judges, the responsible 

ACIJ, the liaison immigration judge and court administrator for the 

evaluated court, the chief clerk of the immigration court, all evaluation 

team members, and the CEU program analyst. 

 38Prior to fiscal year 2003, the evaluation team leader conducted a follow-up visit to assess 

progress made in implementing the recommendations and prepared a report. However, due 

to budgetary constraints, this practice was discontinued. Beginning in fiscal year 2003, the 

court administrator, liaison immigration judge, and the ACIJ were required to submit the 

self-certification of actions taken. 
Page 27 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

Figure 5: OCIJ Immigration Court Evaluation Process 

EOIR/OCIJ also monitors complaints against immigration judges, a 

practice that began in October 2003, at the direction of the EOIR Director. 

Since then, complaint reports have been generated on a monthly basis for 

internal use only. According to EOIR, the goal of the reports is to provide a 

centralized and comprehensive compilation of written and oral complaints 

to EOIR management regarding immigration judges’ conduct on the bench, 

as well as the status of those complaints. OCIJ sends the reports to the 

EOIR Director on a monthly basis. 

Complaints against immigration judges are received from a variety of 

sources, including immigrants, the immigrants’ attorneys, DHS trial 

attorneys, other immigration judges, other court staff, OCIJ headquarters 

staff, and others. They are raised to OCIJ management either orally or in 

EOIR/OCIJ Monitors 

Complaints against 

Immigration Judges 

Source: GAO.

Evaluation team conducts 

court site visits and

submits draft report 

1. 

4.

5.

Chief Immigration Judge 

issues court action plan 

Deputy Chief Immigration 

Judge issues final report

3.

Court submits written 

comments on draft report 

to the Chief Immigration Judge

Court submits self certification 

of actions taken

Self

Certification

2. 

REPORT

final

REPORT 

DRAFT 
Page 28 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

writing, primarily from the ACIJ with supervisory responsibility over the 

affected immigration judge.39 In meetings with the DHS components and 

the American Immigration Lawyers Association, EOIR said that it has 

advised them that their employees or members should raise complaints, as 

issues arise, to the appropriate ACIJ. According to EOIR, OCIJ is to 

immediately notify the EOIR Director when a complaint is filed against an 

immigration judge, even if OCIJ has not had an opportunity to verify the 

accuracy of the allegation. 

According to EOIR, the ACIJ with supervisory responsibility over the 

affected immigration judge is the responsible party for addressing the 

complaint, unless a referral to DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility 

is deemed warranted. The Office of Professional Responsibility, which 

reports directly to the Attorney General, is responsible for investigating 

allegations of misconduct involving Department attorneys, investigators, 

or law enforcement personnel, where the allegations relate to the exercise 

of the authority of an attorney to investigate, litigate, or provide legal 

advice. Once a referral is deemed warranted, either OCIJ, through EOIR’s 

Office of General Counsel, or the Office of General Counsel can refer a 

matter to the Office of Professional Responsibility for investigation. 

Matters involving criminal or serious administrative misconduct such as 

an allegation that a judge had a business relationship with an immigration 

attorney are referred to the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General. 

According to its complaint reports, OCIJ received 129 complaints against 

immigration judges during fiscal years 2001 through 2005. As of September 

30, 2005, OCIJ had taken action on 121 of these complaints; the remaining 

8 were still under review. In response to the 121 complaints, OCIJ took 

134 actions.40 The actions taken were as follows: about 25 percent (34) 

were found to have no merit; about 25 percent resulted in disciplinary 

actions against the judges that included counseling (18), written 

reprimand (9), oral reprimand (3), and suspension (4); about 22 percent 

(29) were referred to DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility or Office 

of the Inspector General or EOIR’s Office of General Counsel for further 

 39According to EOIR, the ACIJs routinely deal with operational issues that fall short of a 

complaint. 

40A complaint may be associated with more than one action. 
Page 29 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

review;41 and the remaining 28 percent (37) resulted in various other 

actions such as informing complainants of the Office of Professional 

Responsibility process or their appeal rights to BIA. 

In January 2006, the Attorney General requested a comprehensive review 

of the immigration courts, to include the quality of work as well as the 

manner in which it is performed. According to DOJ officials, the review 

was initiated in part in response to complaints about the professionalism 

of immigration judges, including their treatment of the people appearing 

before them and the quality of their work. The review included, among 

other things, interviews with selected court personnel, private attorneys 

and immigration organizations, observations of court hearings, and on-line 

surveys of other court personnel and DHS trial attorneys. On 

August 9, 2006, the Attorney General announced the completion of the 

review and a number of reforms to improve the performance and quality 

of the immigration court system. They include, among other reforms, the 

establishment of performance evaluations for immigration judges; the 

development of an immigration law examination for newly appointed 

immigration judges; the hiring of more immigration judges and judicial law 

clerks; and improvements in technology and support to strengthen the 

courts’ ability to record, transcribe, and interpret court proceedings. 

EOIR and its immigration courts play a critical role in upholding 

immigration law. Immigrants depend upon the courts to ensure the timely 

and fair adjudication of their cases, and U.S. residents depend upon the 

courts to order the removal of individuals from the United States who lack 

a legal right to be here. If the increase in caseload continues to outpace the 

growth in the number of immigration judges, the strain on the immigration 

courts will likely intensify. Given these conditions, EOIR will be 

challenged to judiciously manage its caseload and improve its courts’ 

performance. EOIR has taken steps to improve the immigration courts’ 

performance. As part of this process, EOIR has used quarterly case 

completion goal reports that contained inconsistencies. However, EOIR’s 

lack of historical data on the individual queries used to run each quarterly 

 41According to OCIJ’s complaint reports, of the 29 complaints that were referred to these 

offices, 17 were still pending. In closing the other 12 complaints, these offices found 8 

complaints to have no merit. However, for three of these complaints, OCIJ counseled or 

gave a written warning to the immigration judges despite finding no ethical violations. In 

response to the remaining 4 closed complaints, OCIJ took disciplinary actions against the 

judges that included counseling (2), written reprimand (2), and suspension (1). 

Conclusions 
Page 30 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

report precluded our ability to replicate the data and determine the 

accuracy of the reports. By better documenting its case completion goal 

data, EOIR would enable users of the data, including members of its 

management, to better understand exactly what is being measured and the 

data’s implications for the courts’ efficiency. 

To more accurately and consistently reflect the immigration courts’ 

progress in the timely adjudication of immigration cases, we recommend 

that the Director of EOIR (1) maintain appropriate documentation to 

demonstrate the accuracy of case completion goal reports; and (2) clearly 

state what cases are being counted in the reports. 

After reviewing a draft of this report, EOIR responded in an e-mail that it 

concurred with GAO’s recommendations. EOIR also provided technical 

comments, which we have included as appropriate. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its 

date. At that time, we will send copies to the Attorney General, the 

Director of EOIR, and interested congressional committees. We will also 

make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will 

be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you have any questions about this report or wish to discuss it further, 

please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or jonespl@gao.gov. Contact points 

for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report can be found 

in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours, 

Paul L. Jones 

Director, Homeland Security 

 and Justice Issues 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 31 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

Our objectives in this report are to answer the following questions: (1) in 

recent years, what has been the trend in immigration courts’ caseload, 

(2) how does the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ) assign and 

manage immigration court caseload, and (3) how does the Executive 

Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)/OCIJ evaluate the immigration 

courts’ performance? 

To address these objectives, we met with officials from the Department of 

Justice’s EOIR headquarters to obtain information and documentation on 

caseload trends, caseload management, and evaluation of immigration 

courts. To gain a better understanding of the operations and management 

of immigration courts, we also visited four immigration courts—Arlington 

in Arlington, Virginia; Newark in Newark, New Jersey; and two courts in 

New York City, New York. We selected these four courts to include courts 

varying in size,1

 based on the number of immigration judges. At these 

locations, we observed court proceedings and met with immigration 

judges, court administrators, and attorneys that litigate cases before the 

immigration courts—attorneys from the Office of Chief Counsel of DHS’s 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement and private bar attorneys. 

Furthermore, we obtained and analyzed case information contained in 

EOIR’s case management system as well as staffing data for fiscal years 

2000 through 2005 and OCIJ’s reports for court evaluations conducted in 

fiscal years 2000 and 2004. We also interviewed representatives of the 

National Association of Immigration Judges, the American Immigration 

Lawyers Association, and the American Bar Association, Commission on 

Immigration. 

To address the first objective concerning the trend in immigration courts’ 

caseload in recent years, we reviewed data from EOIR’s case management 

system, Automated Nationwide System for Immigration Review, and 

obtained and reviewed relevant documents, regulations, and policies 

pertaining to the immigration courts’ caseload and factors affecting 

caseload. We assessed the reliability of those data needed to answer this 

objective by (1) performing electronic testing for obvious errors in 

accuracy and completeness, (2) reviewing related documentation about 

the data and the system that produced them, including a contractor’s 

report on data verification of the case management system, and 

 1

EOIR categorizes courts according to the number of judges. While some courts only have a 

single judge, small courts have 2 to 4 judges; medium courts, 5 to 14 judges; and large 

courts, 15 or more judges. 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 32 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

(3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

report. From this system, we generated immigration court caseload data 

for fiscal years 2000 through 2005 for all cases–-proceedings, bond 

redeterminations, and motions to reopen or reconsider–--and analyzed 

them for accuracy and completeness. Using SAS software, based on 

criteria provided by EOIR, we generated and reviewed unique data at both 

the global and immigration court level, on the number of newly filed cases, 

cases awaiting adjudication, completed cases, and in absentia decisions, 

as well as the age of proceedings awaiting adjudication. 

To address the second objective concerning how OCIJ assigns and 

manages immigration courts’ caseload, we conducted interviews with 

OCIJ officials, conducted site visits to four immigration courts, and 

reviewed EOIR’s authorized and on-board staffing data for fiscal years 

2000 through 2005, as well as their procedures for detailing immigration 

judges. We also reviewed policies, procedures, and other documents 

relating to OCIJ’s caseload management. According to EOIR, the staffing 

data are from the Department of Agriculture’s National Finance Center 

database, which handles payroll and personnel data for DOJ and other 

agencies. While we did not independently verify the reliability of the 

staffing data, we compared them with other supporting documents, when 

available, to determine data consistency and reasonableness. 

To address the third objective concerning how EOIR/OCIJ evaluates the 

immigration courts’ performance, we obtained and reviewed from EOIR 

internal quarterly case completion goal reports for fiscal years 2001 to 

2005; documents concerning the establishment and refinement of the case 

completion goals; 22 court evaluation reports and related documents for 

the 12 immigration courts evaluated in fiscal years 2000 and 2004; and 

monthly reports containing information on complaints against immigration 

judges received in fiscal years 2001 to 2005. Further, we reviewed relevant 

memos and documents prepared by EOIR officials pertaining to EOIR’s 

monitoring and evaluation programs, as well as the Department of 

Justice’s “Report on Performance and Accountability” and budgets for 

fiscal years 2000 through 2005. To assess the reliability of EOIR’s case 

completion goal reports, we (1) performed logic testing of the data for 

obvious inconsistencies in accuracy and completeness and (2) interviewed 

and sent questions to agency officials knowledgeable about the reports. 

We also reviewed the relevant internal control standards for such reports. 

When we found inconsistencies in the reports we brought them to the 

EOIR officials’ attention and they provided reasons for the inconsistencies. 

However, we could not evaluate the reasonableness of EOIR’s 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 33 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

explanations of the inconsistencies or the overall reliability of each of its 

quarterly reports because EOIR has changed its criteria for compiling the 

reports over time and only maintains documentation on the current set of 

queries used to run the reports. Therefore, we determined that the data in 

the quarterly reports were not sufficiently reliable for purposes of this 

report. 

We conducted our work from March 2005 through August 2006 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix II: Glossary 

Page 34 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

A type of relief from deportation, removal, or exclusion for an immigrant 

who is eligible for Lawful Permanent Resident status based on a visa 

petition approved by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The 

status of an immigrant may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his 

discretion, to that of a lawful permanent resident if a visa petition on 

behalf of the immigrant has been approved, an immigrant visa is 

immediately available at the time of the immigrant’s application for 

adjustment of status, and the immigrant is not otherwise inadmissible to 

the United States. 

An asylum application initially filed with DHS’s U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services. 

Immigrants may request a number of forms of relief or protection from 

removal such as asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the 

Convention Against Torture, adjustment of status, or cancellation of 

removal. Many forms of relief require the immigrant to fill out an 

appropriate application. 

An immigrant may be eligible for protection and immunity from removal if 

he or she can show that he or she is a “refugee.” The Immigration and 

Nationality Act generally defines a refugee as any person who is outside 

his or her country of nationality or, in the case of a person having no 

nationality, is outside any county in which such person last habitually 

resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or 

unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country 

because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account 

of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 

political opinion. Immigrants generally must apply for asylum within 

1 year of arrival in the United States. In the absence of exceptional 

circumstances, final administrative adjudication of the asylum application, 

not including administrative appeal, must be completed within 180 days 

after the date the application is filed. 

Appendix II: Glossary 

Adjustment of status 

Affirmative asylum 

application 

Application for relief 

Asylum 
Appendix II: Glossary 

Page 35 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

The DHS may detain an immigrant who is in removal or deportation 

proceedings and may condition his or her release from custody upon the 

posting of a bond to ensure the immigrant’s appearance at the hearing. The 

amount of money set by DHS as a condition of release is known as a bond. 

A bond may be as a condition of voluntary departure at the master 

calendar, and a bond must be set by an immigration judge as a condition 

for allowing an immigrant to voluntarily leave the country at the 

conclusion of proceedings. 

When DHS has set a bond amount as a condition for release from custody 

or has determined not to release the immigrant on bond, the immigrant 

has the right to ask an immigration judge to redetermine the bond. In a 

bond redetermination hearing, the judge can raise, lower, or maintain the 

amount of the bond; however, the Immigration and Nationality Act 

provides that bond of at least $1,500 is required before an immigrant may 

be released. In addition, the immigration judge can eliminate the bond; or 

change any of the bond conditions over which the immigration court has 

authority. The bond redetermination hearing is completely separate from 

the removal or deportation hearing. It is not recorded and has no bearing 

on the subsequent removal or deportation proceeding. The immigrant 

and/or DHS may appeal the immigration judge’s bond redetermination 

decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. 

There are two different forms of cancellation of removal: 

(A) Cancellation of removal for certain lawful permanent residents 

who were admitted more than 5 years ago, have resided in the United 

States for 7 or more years, and have not been convicted of an 

aggravated felony. Application for this form of discretionary relief is 

made during the course of a hearing before an immigration judge. 

(B) Cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for certain 

nonpermanent resident immigrants who have maintained continuous 

physical presence in the United States for 10 years and have met all the 

other statutory requirements for such relief. Application for this form 

of discretionary relief is made during the course of a hearing before an 

immigration judge. The status of an immigrant who is granted 

cancellation of removal for certain nonpermanent resident immigrants 

is adjusted to that of an immigrant lawfully admitted for permanent 

residence. 

Bond 

Bond redetermination 

Cancellation of removal 
Appendix II: Glossary 

Page 36 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

All proceedings, bond redeterminations, and motions to reopen or 

reconsider that are before the immigration courts. 

A case that has not been completed. 

A case is considered completed once an immigration judge renders a 

decision. Proceedings may also be completed for other reasons, such as 

administrative closures, changes of venue, and transfers. 

All cases awaiting adjudication. 

lmmigration judges, for good cause shown, may change venue (move the 

proceeding to another immigration court) only upon motion by one of the 

parties, after the charging document has been filed with the immigration 

court. The regulation provides that venue may be changed only after one 

of the parties has filed a motion to change venue and the other party has 

been given notice and an opportunity to respond. 

A written instrument prepared by DHS charging an immigrant with a 

violation of immigration law. 

If an immigrant in expedited removal proceedings claims under oath to be 

a U.S. citizen, to have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence, to 

have been admitted as a refugee, or to have been granted asylum, and DHS 

determines that the immigrant has no such claim, he or she can obtain a 

review of that claim by an immigration judge. 

Cases 

Case awaiting adjudication 

Case completion 

Caseload 

Change of venue 

Charging document 

Claimed status review 
Appendix II: Glossary 

Page 37 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

If an immigrant seeking to enter the United States has no documents or no 

valid documents to enter, but expresses a fear of persecution or torture, or 

an intention to apply for asylum, that immigrant will be referred to a DHS 

asylum officer for a credible fear determination. If the asylum officer 

determines that the immigrant has not established a credible fear of 

persecution or torture and a supervisory asylum officer concurs, the 

immigrant may request review of that determination by an immigration 

judge. That review must be concluded as expeditiously as possible, to the 

maximum extent practicable within 24 hours, but in no event later than 

7 days after the date of the determination by the supervisory asylum 

officer. No appeal to the Board of lmmigration Appeals may be taken from 

the immigration judge’s decision finding no credible fear of persecution or 

torture. If the immigration judge determines that the immigrant has a 

credible fear of persecution or torture, the immigrant will be placed in 

removal proceedings to apply for asylum. 

A determination and order arrived at after consideration of facts and law, 

by an immigration judge. 

An asylum application initially filed with the immigration court after the 

immigrant has been put into proceedings to remove him or her from the 

United States. 

Detained immigrants are those in the custody of DHS or other entities. 

lmmigration court hearings for detained immigrants are conducted in DHS 

Service Processing Centers, contract detention facilities, state and local 

government jails, and Bureau of Prisons’ institutions. 

Asylum regulations implemented in 1995 mandated that asylum 

applications be processed within 180 days after filing either at a DHS U.S. 

Citizenship and lmmigration Services Asylum Office or at an immigration 

court. The Illegal lmmigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 

1996 reiterated the 180-day rule. Consequently, expedited processing of 

asylum applications occurs when (1) an immigrant files “affirmatively” at 

an Asylum Office on or after January 4, 1995, and the application is 

referred to the EOIR by DHS within 75 days of the filing; or (2) an 

immigrant files an application “defensively” with EOlR on or after January 

4, 1995. 

Credible fear 

Decision 

Defensive asylum 

application 

Detained 

Expedited asylum 
Appendix II: Glossary 

Page 38 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

A filing occurs with the actual receipt of a document by the appropriate 

immigration court. 

lmmigration judge is an attorney whom the Attorney General appoints as 

an administrative judge within EOIR, qualified to conduct specified classes 

of proceedings, including exclusion, deportation, removal, asylum, bond 

redetermination, rescission, withholding, credible fear, reasonable fear, 

and claimed status review. lmmigration judges act as independent decision 

makers in deciding the matters before them. lmmigration judge decisions 

are administratively final unless appealed or certified to the Board of 

lmmigration Appeals, or if the period by which to file an appeal lapses. 

A Latin phrase meaning “in the absence of.” An in absentia hearing occurs 

when an immigrant fails to appear for a hearing and the immigration judge 

conducts the hearing without the immigrant present and orders the 

immigrant removed from the United States. An immigration judge is to 

order removed in absentia any immigrant who, after written notice of the 

time and place of proceedings and the consequences of failing to appear, 

fails to appear at his or her removal proceeding. The DHS must establish 

by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the written notice was 

provided and that the immigrant is removable. 

The Illegal lmmigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 

replaced the term “excludable” with the term “inadmissible.” Section 212 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act defines classes of immigrants 

ineligible to receive visas and ineligible for admission. Immigrants who, at 

the time of entry, are within one of these classes of inadmissible 

immigrants are removable. 

The hearing in which the government must prove the charges alleged in 

the charging document. The immigrant also is able to present his or her 

case to the immigration judge with witnesses and persuade the 

immigration judge to use his or her discretion and allow the immigrant to 

remain in the United States (if such relief exists). 

The lmmigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 requires the Attorney 

General to expeditiously commence immigration proceedings for 

immigrant inmates convicted of crimes in the United States. To meet this 

Filing 

lmmigration judge 

In absentia 

Inadmissible 

Individual merits hearing 

Institutional hearing 

program 
Appendix II: Glossary 

Page 39 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

requirement, the Department of Justice established the Institutional 

Hearing Program where removal hearings are held inside correctional 

institutions prior to the immigrant completing his or her criminal sentence. 

The Institutional Hearing Program is a collaborative effort between EOIR 

and DHS and various federal, state, and local corrections agencies 

throughout the country. 

A preliminary hearing held to review the charges in the charging document 

before an immigration judge. The immigration judge explains the 

immigrant’s rights (e.g., the immigrant’s right to an attorney) and asks if 

the immigrant agrees with or denies the charges as alleged by DHS in the 

charging document. The immigration judge determines if the immigrant is 

eligible for any form(s) of relief, and sets a date for the individual merits 

hearing. 

A motion is a formal request from either party (the immigrant or DHS) in 

proceedings before the immigration court, to carry out an action or make a 

decision. Motions include, for example, motions for change of venue, 

motions for continuance, motions to terminate proceedings, etc. 

Immigrants may request, by motion, the reconsideration of a case 

previously heard by an immigration judge. A motion to reconsider either 

identifies an error in law or fact in a prior proceeding or identifies a 

change in law and asks the immigration judge to re-examine his or her 

ruling. A motion to reconsider is based on the existing record and does not 

seek to introduce new facts or evidence. 

Either party makes a formal request before the immigration court to 

reopen the case. 

The status of an immigrant who is not in the custody of DHS or the 

Institutional Hearing Program. 

The document (Form 1-862) used by DHS to charge an immigrant with 

being removable from the United States. Jurisdiction vests and 

proceedings commence when a Notice to Appear is filed with an 

immigration court by DHS. 

Master calendar 

Motion 

Motion to reconsider 

Motion to reopen 

Non-detained 

Notice to Appear 
Appendix II: Glossary 

Page 40 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

The legal process conducted before the immigration court. 

In hearings before an immigration judge, an immigrant may be able to seek 

relief from removal. Various types of relief may be sought, including 

asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against 

Torture, cancellation of removal, or adjustment of status. Many forms of 

relief require the immigrant to fill out an appropriate application. 

An immigration court proceeding begun on or after April 1, 1997, seeking 

to either stop certain immigrants from being admitted to the United States 

or to remove them from the United States. A removal case usually arises 

when DHS alleges that an immigrant is inadmissible to the United States, 

has entered the country illegally by crossing the border without being 

inspected by an immigration officer, or has violated the terms of his or her 

admission. The DHS issues a charging document called a Notice to Appear 

and files it with an immigration court to begin a removal proceeding. 

An immigrant agrees to depart from the United States without an order of 

removal. The departure may or may not have been preceded by a hearing 

before an immigration judge. An immigrant allowed to voluntarily depart 

concedes removability but is not barred from seeking admission at a port 

of entry in the future. Failure to depart within the time granted results in a 

fine and a 10-year bar against the immigrant applying for several forms of 

relief from removal. 

Proceeding 

Relief from removal 

Removal proceedings 

Voluntary departure 
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 41 GAO-06-771 Executive Office for Immigration Review 

Paul L. Jones (202) 512-8777 

In addition to the contact named above, Eric Bachhuber, Frances Cook, 

Katherine Davis, Evan Gilman, Clarette Kim, Grant Mallie, Katrina Moss, 

Sandra Tasic, Margaret Vo, and Robert White made key contributions to 

this report. 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

(440381) 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER