IMMIGRATION 

COURTS

Actions Needed 

to Reduce Case 

Backlog and Address 

Long-Standing 

Management and 

Operational 

Challenges

Report to Congressional Requesters

June 2017

GAO-17-438

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-438, a report to 

congressional requesters

June 2017

IMMIGRATION COURTS

Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and 

Address Long-Standing Management and Operational 

Challenges

What GAO Found

GAO’s analysis showed that the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s 

(EOIR) case backlog—cases pending from previous years that remain open at 

the start of a new fiscal year—more than doubled from fiscal years 2006 through 

2015 (see figure) primarily due to declining cases completed per year.

Immigration Courts’ Case Backlog, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015

EOIR has taken some steps to address its workforce needs, such as entering 

into a contract to determine judicial staff workloads, but does not have a 

workforce plan that would help EOIR better address staffing needs, such as 

those resulting from the 39 percent of its immigration judges who are currently 

eligible for retirement. EOIR also does not have efficient practices for hiring new 

immigration judges, which has contributed to immigration judges being staffed 

below authorized levels. GAO found that it took an average of 742 days to hire 

new judges from 2011 through August 2016. By assessing its hiring process and 

developing a hiring strategy that targets staffing needs, EOIR would be better 

positioned to hire judges more quickly and address its staffing gaps.

One example of EOIR’s efforts to assess court operations is the extent and 

reasons why judges issue continuances—temporary case adjournments until a 

different day or time. EOIR collects continuance data, but does not 

systematically assess them. GAO’s analysis of continuance records showed that 

that the use of continuances increased by 23 percent from fiscal years 2006 

through 2015. Systematically analyzing the use of continuances could provide 

EOIR officials with valuable information about challenges the immigration courts 

may be experiencing, such as with operational issues like courtroom technology 

malfunctions, or areas that may merit additional guidance for immigration judges.

View GAO-17-438. For more information, 

contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777 

or gamblerr@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Justice’s EOIR is 

responsible for conducting immigration 

court proceedings, appellate reviews, 

and administrative hearings to fairly, 

expeditiously, and uniformly administer 

and interpret U.S. immigration laws.

GAO was asked to review EOIR’s 

management of the immigration court 

system and options for improving 

EOIR’s performance. This report 

addresses, among other things, (1) 

what EOIR data indicate about its 

caseload, including the backlog of 

cases; (2) how EOIR manages and 

oversees immigration court operations, 

including workforce planning and 

hiring; and (3) the extent to which 

EOIR has assessed immigration court 

performance, including case 

continuance data. GAO analyzed 

EOIR’s case data from fiscal years 

2006 through 2015—the most current 

data available—reviewed EOIR 

documentation, interviewed agency 

officials, and conducted visits to six 

immigration courts selected to include 

courts with relatively large and small

case backlogs, among other things. 

GAO also interviewed experts and 

stakeholders selected based upon, 

among other things, their published 

work on the immigration court system. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making 11 recommendations

to, among other things, improve 

EOIR’s workforce planning, hiring, and 

analysis of continuance data. EOIR 

stated that it agrees with most of the 

recommendations, but did not specify 

whether it agrees with individual 

recommendations. GAO continues to 

believe that all 11 recommendations 

remain valid as discussed further in 

this report.
Page i GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Letter 1

Background 8

Immigration Courts’ Caseload Grew Due to an Increased Case 

Backlog, Posing Challenges to Stakeholders 20

EOIR Could Improve its Workforce Planning, Hiring, and 

Technology Utilization to Help Address the Case Backlog 34

Comprehensive Performance Assessment Could Help EOIR 

Identify Effective Management Approaches to Address the 

Case Backlog 60

Experts and Stakeholders Have Proposed Restructuring EOIR’s 

Immigration Court System 73

Conclusions 87

Recommendations for Executive Action 89

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 90

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 99

Appendix II Immigration Court Case Backlog, Case Receipts, and 

Case Completions, Fiscal Years 2012 through 2015 112

Appendix III Immigration Court Proceedings Continuances, 

Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015 121

Appendix IV Additional Characteristics of Selected Court and 

Adjudicatory Systems and the Immigration Court System 136

Appendix V Comments from Department of Justice 139

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 146

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Tables

Table 1: Median Number of Days for Initial Case Completion by 

Case Type, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015 26

Table 2: Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (EOIR) Case 

Completion Goals and Quarterly Performance, Fiscal 

Years 2010 through 2015 63

Table 3: New Priority Immigration Court Cases Since Priority 

Guidance Was Issued in September 2014 through 

September 2015 65

Table 4: Characteristics of the Current Immigration Courts and 

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and Selected 

Systems Similar to Scenarios Supported by Experts and 

Stakeholders 76

Table 5: Number of Experts and Stakeholders Citing Reasons for 

and Against Each Proposed Immigration Court 

Restructuring Scenario 81

Table 6: Case Backlog, Receipts, Completions, Changes of 

Venue or Transfers, and Caseload by Immigration Court, 

Fiscal Year 2012 112

Table 7: Case Backlog, Receipts, Completions, Changes of 

Venue or Transfers, and Caseload by Immigration Court, 

Fiscal Year 2013 114

Table 8: Case Backlog, Receipts, Completions, Changes of 

Venue or Transfers, and Caseload by Immigration Court, 

Fiscal Year 2014 116

Table 9: Case Backlog, Receipts, Completions, Changes of 

Venue or Transfers, and Caseload by Immigration Court, 

Fiscal Year 2015 118

Table 10: Percentage of Completed Immigration Court Cases by 

Number of Continuances, Fiscal Years 2006 through 

2015 122

Table 11: Average Days to Complete Cases by the Number of 

Continuances, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015 123

Table 12: Continuances by Category, Fiscal Years 2006 through 

2015 124

Table 13: Respondent-Related Continuance Reasons, Fiscal 

Years 2006 through 2015 125

Table 14: Department of Homeland Security (DHS)-Related 

Continuance Reasons, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015 128

Table 15: Immigration Judge-Related Continuance Reasons, 

Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015 131
Page iii GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Table 16: Operational-Related Continuance Reasons, Fiscal 

Years 2006 through 2015 133

Table 17: Additional Characteristics of Selected Systems Similar 

to Scenarios Proposed by Experts and Stakeholders and 

the Current Immigration Courts and Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA) 136

Figures

Figure 1: Organization of the Executive Office for Immigration 

Review (EOIR) 10

Figure 2: Map of Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) 

Immigration Court Locations 11

Figure 3: Total Executive Office for Immigration Review 

Appropriated and Requested Funds, Fiscal Years 2005 

through 2017 12

Figure 4: Steps in Immigration Court Removal Proceedings 

Process 16

Figure 5: Immigration Courts’ Annual Caseload and Component 

Parts, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015 21

Figure 6: Immigration Court Completed Cases, Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2015 23

Figure 7: Board of Immigration Appeals Completions by Appeal 

Type and Median Completion Time, Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2015 33

Figure 8: Strategic Workforce Planning Process 36

Figure 9: Average Hiring Timeline for Executive Office for 

Immigration Review (EOIR) Immigration Judges, Fiscal 

Year 2015 through August 2016 42

Figure 10: Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (EOIR) 

Cases with Case Completion Goals, Fiscal Years 2002 

through 2015 62
Page iv GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Abbreviations

ACUS Administrative Conference of the United States

BIA Board of Immigration Appeals

BVA Board of Veterans’ Appeals

CAVC Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOJ Department of Justice

ECAS EOIR Courts and Appeals Systems

EOIR Executive Office for Immigration Review

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

INA Immigration and Nationality Act

NTA Notice to Appear

OCAHO Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer

ODAR Office of Disability Adjudication and Review

OIT EOIR Office of Information Technology

OPLA Office of the Principal Legal Advisor

OPM Office of Personnel Management

SSA Social Security Administration

USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

VA Department of Veterans Affairs 

VTC video teleconference

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

United States. The published product 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-17-438 Immigration Courts

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

June 1, 2017

The Honorable Claire McCaskill

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Chairman

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

The Honorable Trey Gowdy

Chairman

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

Homeland Security, and Investigations

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

Each year, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiates 

hundreds of thousands of cases with the U.S. immigration court system to 

decide whether respondents—foreign nationals charged on statutory 

grounds of inadmissibility or deportability—are removable as charged; 

and, if so, should be ordered removed from the United States or granted 

any requested relief or protection from removal and permitted to lawfully 

remain in the country.1 The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Executive 

Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is responsible for conducting 

immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative 

hearings to fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly administer and interpret 

U.S. immigration laws and regulations. A significant and growing case 

backlog—the number of cases pending at the start of each fiscal year—

before the immigration courts has been the subject of attention by 

Congress, immigration court experts and stakeholders, and others. 

Additionally, EOIR’s Director has testified that EOIR’s growing pending 

 1

Throughout this report we generally use the term “relief” in reference to any form of relief 

or protection from removal provided for under U. S. immigration law.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

caseload is its largest challenge.2 In particular, according to data EOIR 

reported in its Fiscal Year 2016 Statistics Yearbook, the number of 

pending cases before its immigration courts grew by 58 percent from 

fiscal years 2012 through 2016 to a backlog of more than 500,000 cases 

pending at the start of fiscal year 2017.

3 As a result, some respondents’

cases may take years to resolve.

EOIR officials have identified increases in immigration court caseloads 

and legal complexity, as well as resource shortages as contributing to the 

backlog. However, immigration court experts and stakeholders have cited 

additional challenges and the immigration court system’s structure as 

adversely affecting the courts’ efficiency and effectiveness. To address 

these challenges, various organizations, such as the American Bar 

Association and the National Association for Immigration Judges, have 

recommended, among other things, management improvements; 

incremental reform of the immigration courts within the existing EOIR 

structure; and major structural changes, such as creating an immigration 

court system independent of any executive branch department or agency. 

These and other organizations have suggested that restructuring could 

result in various benefits, such as enhanced credibility and organizational 

capacity.

EOIR’s quasi-judicial functions are carried out by the immigration court 

system, which includes 58 immigration courts located nationwide that are 

overseen by the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, whose 

immigration judges preside over removal proceedings to determine 

respondents’ removability and eligibility for any relief being sought, and 

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), whose members hear and issue 

decisions regarding appeals of immigration judge and certain DHS 

decisions.4 Additionally, the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing 

 2

The 2014 Humanitarian Crisis at Our Border: Review of the Government’s Response to 

Unaccompanied Minors One Year Later: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. 

& Gov. Affairs, 114th Cong. 1 (2015) (statement of Juan P. Osuna, Director, DOJ EOIR). 

3

Executive Office for Immigration Review, FY2016 Statistics Yearbook, (Falls Church, Va.: 

March, 2017). 

4

The term “quasi-judicial” generally characterizes the adjudicatory function(s) of an 

administrative agency, such as EOIR, involving the exercise of discretion, judicial in its 

nature, in connection with the resolution of matters presided over by its officers or 

employees through the consideration of evidence and application of law to fact(s) on a 

case-by-case basis, thus exercising independent judgment and discretion consistent with 

relevant legal authorities.
Page 3 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Officer (OCAHO) adjudicates immigration-related employment and 

document fraud cases.

In 2006, we reported on trends in the immigration courts’ caseload from 

fiscal years 2000 through 2005, how the Office of the Chief Immigration 

Judge assigned and managed the immigration courts’ caseload, and how 

EOIR evaluated the courts’ performance.5 We found that despite an 

increase in the number of immigration judges, the number of new cases 

filed in immigration courts outpaced cases completed, resulting in a case 

backlog. Specifically, during this period, while the number of on-board 

immigration judges increased approximately 3 percent, the courts’

caseload grew by approximately 39 percent. Regarding caseload 

assignment and management, we found that the Office of the Chief

Immigration Judge primarily relied on an automated system to assign 

cases to immigration judges within a court, but also considered the 

number of newly filed cases and cases awaiting adjudication from prior 

years, historical data, and the type and complexity of cases. Additionally, 

we found that EOIR evaluated the performance of the immigration courts 

based on the immigration courts’ success in meeting case completion 

goals, but its performance reporting could be more accurate and 

consistent. To more accurately and consistently reflect the immigration 

courts’ progress in the timely adjudication of immigration cases, we 

recommended that the EOIR Director maintain appropriate 

documentation to demonstrate the accuracy of case completion goal 

reports and clearly state which cases are being counted in the reports. 

EOIR agreed with our recommendations and took actions to implement 

them, such as issuing standard operating procedures for generating case 

completion goal reports.

You asked us to review EOIR’s management and oversight of the 

immigration court system, as well as options for improving EOIR’s 

performance, including through restructuring. This report addresses the 

following questions: (1) What do EOIR data indicate about its caseload, 

including the backlog of cases, and potential contributing factors and 

effects of the backlog according to stakeholders? (2) How does EOIR 

manage and oversee immigration court operations, including workforce 

planning, hiring, and technology utilization? (3) To what extent has EOIR 

assessed immigration court performance, including analyzing relevant 

 5

GAO, Executive Office for Immigration Review: Caseload Performance Reporting Needs 

Improvement, GAO-06-771 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 11, 2006). 
Page 4 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

information, such as data on case continuances? (4) What scenarios 

have been proposed for restructuring EOIR’s immigration court system 

and what reasons have been offered for or against these proposals?

To address all four objectives, we analyzed agency documentation, 

consulted with immigration court system experts and stakeholders, and 

interviewed EOIR and DHS officials from headquarters and six 

immigration courts. In particular, we conducted site visits to the Baltimore, 

Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; Houston, Texas; Port Isabel, Texas; San 

Francisco, California; and Seattle, Washington immigration courts to 

observe proceedings and interview EOIR immigration court officials, 

including judges, about court management and operations. During these 

visits we also interviewed DHS attorneys who represent the government 

in immigration proceedings at the courts. Toward maximizing the diversity 

of the sites we visited, we selected them to include courts with relatively 

large and small case backlogs; relatively high and low case completions 

per judge; a large number of detained cases, which are deemed a priority 

by EOIR; and that have experienced staffing shortfalls. We also selected 

courts in different geographic regions and courts that are proximate to 

other courts. Since we selected a non-probability sample of courts to visit, 

the information we obtained cannot be generalized more broadly to all 

immigration courts. However, the information provides important context 

and insights into EOIR’s management of the immigration court system.

To determine what EOIR data indicate about its caseload, including the 

backlog of cases, we analyzed data on immigration case receipts and 

completions from EOIR’s case management system for fiscal years 2006 

through 2015, the most current data available at the time of our review.6

We assessed the reliability of these data by reviewing system 

documentation, interviewing knowledgeable officials about system 

controls, and conducting electronic testing. We determined that these 

data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives. 

We included all immigration court cases received or completed that were 

adjudicated by EOIR immigration judges in EOIR immigration courts and 

 6

We selected fiscal years 2006 through 2015 as our period of analysis to include all EOIR 

caseload data from the time we previously reported on the subject in 2006 until the last full 

year of data available at the time we began our review in November 2015. See 

GAO-06-771. We use the term caseload to denote the workload or volume of open cases 

before the courts during a given time period. These cases may or may not have been 

adjudicated by the courts during the time period. This definition may be different from how 

EOIR uses the term in its annual statistics yearbook or other publications.
Page 5 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

at the BIA.7 To determine the case backlog, we calculated the number of 

cases that were opened in previous fiscal years that remained open at the 

start of the new fiscal year. During our six immigration court site visits, we 

interviewed DHS attorneys from six offices, twelve EOIR immigration 

judges, and five court administrators to determine potential contributing 

factors to the case backlog, and how, if at all, the immigration courts’

backlog has affected stakeholders. Additionally, we identified and 

obtained perspectives from ten entities that represent other immigration 

court experts and stakeholders, the selection of which we describe below, 

to obtain their perspectives on potential contributing factors to the case 

backlog and how it has affected stakeholders, if at all.8 Among others, 

these included the American Immigration Lawyers Association, an 

association of attorneys and law professors who practice and teach 

immigration law, and the National Association of Immigration Judges, 

which represents immigration judges.

To address our second objective on how EOIR manages and oversees 

immigration court operations, a GAO research librarian conducted a 

literature search of scholarly, peer-reviewed publications and trade and 

industry articles published from 2000 through November 2015 addressing 

EOIR’s management of the immigration courts. Following an initial review 

to further refine the scope of publications most relevant to this objective, 

an additional analyst then independently reviewed these reports to 

identify the most commonly cited management issues affecting the 

immigration court system. Any differences between their assessments 

were reconciled to reach agreement on these management issues. This 

process identified workforce planning and hiring, technology utilization, 

including the use of video-teleconferencing (VTC) for hearings, and 

performance measurement, which is addressed in the third objective, as 

the most prominent issues related to EOIR’s management and oversight 

of the immigration court system.

To assess EOIR’s workforce planning and hiring efforts, we analyzed 

relevant documentation, such as contracts for workforce planning 

services as well as personnel files and data containing information on 

immigration judge hiring. In particular, we reviewed EOIR data on the 

 7

We did not analyze data from OCAHO because its caseload is small in comparison to 

that of the immigration courts and the BIA and, as a result, would not significantly affect 

our case backlog analysis.

8

For a full list of groups we interviewed and how we identified and selected them, see app.

I. 
Page 6 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

number of immigration judges it was authorized by Congress to hire and 

the number of immigration judges on board from fiscal years 2006 

through 2015 as well as data on timeframes for hiring new immigration 

judges from fiscal years 2011 through August 2016. We assessed the 

reliability of these data by comparing data in a sample of hiring files with 

EOIR-compiled data on the hiring process, as well as gathering 

information on the reliability of hiring data from EOIR headquarters 

officials. We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of our reporting objectives. Additionally, we interviewed EOIR 

headquarters officials on how EOIR determines its workforce needs and 

hires immigration judges. We then assessed EOIR’s workforce planning 

and hiring processes against GAO’s key principles for effective strategic 

workforce planning and human capital self-assessment checklist, which 

provides human capital guidance for agencies.9

To evaluate how EOIR utilizes technology in the immigration courts, 

particularly its efforts to implement a comprehensive e-filing system and 

use of VTC for immigration hearings, we reviewed pertinent agency 

documentation and interviewed EOIR Office of Information Technology 

(OIT) officials. Additionally, we interviewed immigration court officials in all 

six of the courts we visited and observed technology use in three of the 

courts. We used this information to assess EOIR’s efforts against best 

practices for developing and acquiring technology and best practices 

established by the Administrative Conference of the United States 

(ACUS) that provide technical, operational, and environmental guidance 

on how agencies may implement or improve their use of VTC in 

administrative hearings and related proceedings.10

 9

GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, 

GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2013); and Human Capital: A Self-Assessment 

Checklist for Agency Leaders, GAO/OCG-00-14G (Washington, DC: Sept.1, 2000). 

10Project Management Institute, Inc., The Standard for Program Management–Third 

Edition, 2013; Software Engineering Institute/Carnegie Mellon, Capability Maturity ModeI® 

Integration (CMMI®) for Development, Version 1.3, CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033 (Hanscomb 

AFB, Massachusetts: November 2010) and CMMI® for Acquisition, Version 1.3, 

CMU/SEI-2010-TR-032 (Hanscomb AFB, Massachusetts: November 2010); GAO, 

Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for Assessing and 

Improving Process Maturity, GAO-04-394G (Washington, D.C.: March 2004); GAO, 

Immigration Benefits System: Better Informed Decision Making Needed on Transformation 

Program, GAO-15-415 (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2015); and Center for Legal and Court 

Technologies and the Administrative Conference of the United States, Report to the 

Administrative Conference of the United States: Best Practices for Using Video 

Teleconferencing for Hearings and Related Proceedings (Washington D.C.: 2014).
Page 7 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

To address the third objective, the extent to which EOIR has assessed 

immigration court performance, we reviewed documentation on EOIR’s 

performance measurement system, including case completion goals and 

the Immigration Court Evaluation Program, and interviewed EOIR 

officials. We also obtained and analyzed data on immigration case 

continuances, receipts, and completions from EOIR’s case management 

system from fiscal years 2006 through 2015 to determine the extent to 

which these data support EOIR’s performance monitoring activities. As 

previously mentioned, we assessed the reliability of these data using a 

variety of methods and determined they were sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of this report. We then compared the results of our analysis 

against criteria such as Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government, EOIR’s most recent strategic plan covering fiscal years 

2008 through 2013, and best practices for using performance information 

for management decisions.11

To address our fourth objective on proposals for restructuring the 

immigration court system, we collected information and perspectives from 

experts and stakeholders to identify scenarios that have been proposed 

for restructuring the immigration court system and reasons offered for or 

against them. Specifically, a GAO research librarian conducted a 

literature search of scholarly, peer-reviewed publications and trade and 

industry articles to identify publications from 2000 through January 2016 

containing information on proposals for restructuring EOIR’s immigration 

court system. We reviewed this literature and used the following criteria to 

assess and select an initial list of experts and stakeholders to interview 

regarding restructuring scenarios: relevance of published work to 

immigration court restructuring, author’s type and depth of experience, 

and rigor of methodology used in the published work. To further develop 

the list, we also considered input from our identified experts and 

stakeholders, as well as EOIR, on any additional experts or stakeholders 

we should interview. To ensure a diversity of perspectives regarding 

proposed scenarios for restructuring the immigration court system, we 

selected 10 experts and stakeholders from a variety of organizations, 

including federal agencies, immigration lawyer and respondent advocacy 

groups and individuals, and the immigration judges’ union. These entities 

 11GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 

(Washington, D.C.: Nov.1 1999); Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government, GAO-14-704G (Washington, D.C.: Sept.10 2014); and Managing for 

Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information for Management Decision 

Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington, D.C.: Sept.9, 2005).
Page 8 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

may not be representative of the universe of experts and stakeholders on 

the immigration court system and therefore may not represent all views 

on this topic; however, their views provide insights on proposals for 

restructuring the immigration court system. We also interviewed officials 

and reviewed related documentation from existing court and adjudicatory 

systems, including the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts, the Social Security 

Administration’s (SSA) Office of Disability Adjudication and Review 

(ODAR), and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) and Court of Appeals 

for Veterans Claims (CAVC), that, according to experts and stakeholders, 

exemplify various aspects of scenarios proposed for restructuring the 

immigration court system. Appendix I provides additional information on 

our scope and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2015 to June 2017 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

EOIR is an office within DOJ that, subject to the direction and regulation 

of the Attorney General, conducts immigration court proceedings, 

appellate reviews, and administrative hearings.12 EOIR was created as a 

separate agency within DOJ on January 9, 1983 as a result of an internal 

DOJ reorganization to improve the management, direction, and control of 

the quasi-judicial immigration review programs that had been within 

legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service.13 This reorganization 

placed the BIA and immigration judge functions under the newly created 

EOIR independent of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. OCAHO 

was established in 1987 by the Attorney General pursuant to the 

 12See 6 U.S.C. § 521; 8 U.S.C. § 1103(g); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(a).

13See Board of Immigration Appeals; Immigration Review Function; Editorial 

Amendments, 48 Fed. Reg. 8038 (Feb. 25, 1983). See, generally, 8 C.F.R. pt. 1003, for 

organization and responsibilities of OCIJ and the BIA within EOIR.

Background

Immigration Court System 

Roles, Structure, and 

Budget
Page 9 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.14 EOIR’s 

primary mission is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, 

and uniformly interpreting and administering federal immigration laws. 

EOIR immigration judges and the BIA members are responsible for 

hearing, and exercising their independent judgment and discretion in 

deciding, all cases that come before them.15

As previously discussed, EOIR’s primary adjudicatory functions are 

housed within the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, the BIA, and 

OCAHO, as shown in figure 1. The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge 

provides overall program direction, articulates policies and procedures, 

and establishes priorities applicable to the immigration courts.16 This 

office—comprised of approximately 998 full-time employees in 2016—is 

headed by a Chief Immigration Judge who carries out these 

responsibilities with the assistance and support of three Deputy Chief 

Immigration Judges and 14 Assistant Chief Immigration Judges. The 

Assistant Chief Immigration Judges serve as the principal liaisons 

between the Office of Chief Immigration Judge’s headquarters and the 

immigration courts, and have supervisory authority over immigration 

judges, court administrators, and judicial law clerks.17 At the court level, 

court administrators manage the daily court operations as well as the 

administrative staff, which include clerks and administrative assistants, 

among others. The BIA is headed by a Chairman designated by the 

Attorney General, who is to direct, supervise, and establish internal 

 14See Pub. L. No. 99-603, tit. I, pt. A, §§ 101(a)(1), 102(a), 100 Stat. 3359, 3360-72, 

3374-79 (classified, as amended, at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324a, 1324b). 

15Under U.S. immigration law, an “immigration judge” is an attorney appointed by the 

Attorney General as an administrative judge within EOIR, qualified to conduct specified 

classes of proceedings, including formal removal proceedings under INA § 240. See 8 

U.S.C. § 1101(b)(4); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10. A “Board Member” is an attorney appointed by 

the Attorney General to act as their delegate in resolving administrative appeals. 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.1(a)(1). Regarding an immigration judge’s or Board Member’s independence and 

discretion in rendering decisions consistent with relevant law and regulation, see 8 C.F.R. 

§§§ 1003.1(d)(1)(ii), 1003.10(b). 

16See 8 C.F.R. pt. 1003, subpt. B (Office of the Chief Immigration Judge). 

17The Assistant Chief Immigration Judges have supervisory authority over the immigration 

judges, but they do not review the immigration judges’ decisions, which are reviewed only 

on appeal before the BIA, as discussed further below. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.9(c), which 

prohibits the Chief Immigration Judge from directing the result of an adjudication assigned 

to another immigration judge.
Page 10 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

operating procedures and policies of the BIA.18 The Chairman has various 

management authorities, such as providing appropriate training for the 

BIA members and staff, and evaluating the performance of the BIA and 

taking corrective action where needed.19

Figure 1: Organization of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)

EOIR has 58 courts nationwide, as shown in figure 2, including courts that 

are co-located with a detention center or correctional facility.20 The sizes 

of the immigration courts vary. For example, in fiscal year 2015, the 

smallest of the immigration courts—Fishkill, New York—consisted of 1 

full-time employee and the largest court—Los Angeles, California—had 

approximately 85 full-time employees.

 188 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(2). The Attorney General may also designate one or two Vice 

Chairmen to assist the Chairman in the performance of their duties and to exercise all of 

the powers and duties of the Chairman in their absence or unavailability. Id.

19The Chairman is not authorized to direct the result of an adjudication assigned to 

another Board member or to a panel. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(2)(ii).

20In addition to the immigration courts, EOIR has designated other locations where 

hearings can take place for administrative reasons. 
Page 11 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Figure 2: Map of Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Immigration Court Locations

In 2016, the BIA had 237 full-time employees, including 15 BIA Members, 

who are the attorneys appointed by the Attorney General to hear and 

issue decisions regarding administrative appeals.21 In 2016, OCAHO had 

11 full-time employees. Apart from the Office of the Chief Immigration 

Judge, the BIA, and OCAHO, EOIR has additional offices, including OIT, 

which is responsible for the design, development, operations, and 

maintenance of the agency’s information technology systems.

 21See 8 C.F.R. pt. 1003, subpt. A (Board of Immigration Appeals).
Page 12 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

EOIR’s total appropriation increased every year, except for fiscal years 

2011 and 2013, from approximately $199 million in fiscal year 2005 to 

approximately $440 million in fiscal year 2017, as shown in figure 3. 

Regarding expenditures by component, the Office of the Chief 

Immigration Judge spent the highest percentage of total appropriated 

funds—about 51 percent—from fiscal years 2012 through 2016. The 

BIA’s average percentage of total expenditures from fiscal years 2012 

through 2016 was approximately 15 percent, and OCAHO’s the smallest 

at less than 1 percent. EOIR’s Offices of Information Technology, 

Administration, General Counsel, Legal Access Programs, and Director 

made up the remainder of EOIR’s total expenditures for this period.

Figure 3: Total Executive Office for Immigration Review Appropriated and 

Requested Funds, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2017

DHS is responsible for identifying, detaining, litigating charges of 

removability against, and removing foreign nationals who are suspected 

and determined to be in the United States in violation of U.S. immigration 

laws. Within DHS, trial attorneys from U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement’s (ICE) Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) are 
Page 13 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

charged with representing the U.S. government as civil prosecutors in 

removal proceedings before EOIR immigration judges.22 ICE’s 

Enforcement and Removal Operations is responsible for detaining certain 

potentially removable foreign nationals pending the outcome of their 

immigration court cases and for detaining and removing from the country 

individuals subject to an immigration judge’s final order of removal.

If DHS alleges a violation of U.S. immigration law that is subject to 

adjudication by the immigration courts (i.e., grounds of removability), it 

serves the individual—the respondent—with a charging document, known 

as a Notice to Appear (NTA), ordering the individual’s appearance before 

an immigration judge to respond to removal charges.23 DHS also files the 

NTA with whichever EOIR immigration court it determines appropriate 

and advises the respondent of, among other things, the nature of the 

proceeding, the alleged grounds of removability, the right to an attorney at 

no expense to the government, and the consequences of failing to appear 

at scheduled hearings. While removal proceedings are pending, 

respondents may be detained in ICE custody or, if otherwise eligible for 

bond, released on bond or conditional parole.24 Respondents may 

request a bond redetermination hearing in which an immigration judge 

reviews ICE’s custody and bond decision.25

In conducting removal proceedings and adjudicating cases, immigration 

judges conduct an initial master calendar hearing to, among other things, 

ensure the respondent understands the immigration court proceedings 

and provide the respondent with an opportunity to admit or deny the 

charge(s) brought against them. If the issue of removability is not 

resolved at the initial or follow-on master calendar hearings, or if the 

respondent concedes or the immigration judge otherwise determines that 

the respondent is removable and the respondent seeks relief or protection 

 22See 6 U.S.C. § 252(c).

238 U.S.C. § 1229 (Initiation of removal proceedings).

24The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended, provides DHS with broad 

discretion (subject to certain legal standards) to detain, or release aliens on bond, 

conditional parole or terms of supervision, depending on the circumstances and statutory 

basis for detention. The law requires DHS to detain particular categories of aliens, such as 

those deemed inadmissible for certain criminal convictions or terrorist activity. See 8 

U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226, 1226a, 1231.

258 C.F.R. § 1003.19.

Overview of the 

Immigration Court Process
Page 14 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

from removal, the immigration judge schedules a merits hearing.26 During 

a merits hearing, the immigration judge may hear arguments as to 

removability, if still at issue, and if the respondent is deemed removable, 

any claims for, and OPLA opposition to, relief or protection from removal, 

such as asylum.27 Other forms of relief that may be sought during removal 

proceedings include adjustment of status, and withholding or cancellation 

of removal.28

As part of the merits hearing, immigration judges hear testimony and 

review documentary evidence from the respondent regarding the facts 

and circumstances of their case relative to the statutory requirements for 

relief, and any other witnesses, such as family members, friends, or 

experts on country conditions; and attend to cross-examinations 

 26Under U.S. immigration law, a foreign national is removable if: (1) not admitted to the 

United States and found inadmissible under section 212 of the IINA; or (2) admitted to the 

United States and deemed deportable under INA § 237. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182, 1227, 

1229a(c), (e)(2). Those determined to be removable and not eligible for any requested 

relief or protection from removal would be subject to removal pursuant to the judge’s order 

once it is administratively final. 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1. Throughout this report we generally use 

the term “relief” in reference to any form of relief or protection from removal provided for 

under U. S. immigration law.

27In November 2016, GAO reported on (1) variation in asylum applications outcomes over 

time, across courts, and between immigration judges; (2) factors associated with this 

variation; and (3) EOIR’s actions to facilitate asylum applicants’ access to legal resources. 

See GAO, Asylum: Variation Exists in Outcomes of Applications Across Immigration 

Courts and Judges, GAO-17-72 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2016). U.S. immigration law 

provides that foreign nationals arriving or present in the United States may be granted 

humanitarian protection in the form of asylum if they are unable or unwilling to return to 

their home country because of past persecution, or a well-founded fear of future 

persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 

group, or political opinion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158. 

28See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b (Cancellation of removal may be available for an otherwise 

removable permanent resident alien if the individual has had permanent residency for at 

least 5 years, resided in the United States continuously for 7 years under any lawful 

status, and not been convicted of an aggravated felony; a non-permanent resident alien 

may also be granted cancellation of removal provided, among other things, they have 

continuous physical presence in the United States for at least 10 years, and establish that 

removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their U.S. citizen or 

lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, or child), 1231(b)(3) (To qualify for withholding 

of removal under INA § 241(b)(3), the applicant must establish a clear probability that their 

life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership 

in a particular social group, or political opinion, in the proposed country of removal), 

1255(a) (An alien may have their status adjusted to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 

permanent residence where an application is made for such adjustment, the individual is 

eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States, and an 

immigrant visa is immediately available at the time of filing).
Page 15 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

conducted by OPLA attorneys. Additionally, the immigration judge may 

question the respondent or other witnesses.

Based on the testimonial and documentary evidence in the record, the 

immigration judge must then decide whether the removable respondent 

satisfies the applicable eligibility criteria for any requested relief, and with 

respect to discretionary relief, that the respondent merits a favorable 

exercise of discretion.29 If the judge finds that the respondent is 

removable and not otherwise eligible for relief, the judge will issue an 

order of removal and the respondent would be subject to removal 

pursuant to the judge’s order once it has become administratively final.30

Other potential outcomes of removal proceedings include the judge 

permitting the respondent to withdraw their application for admission; 

granting voluntary departure; or administratively closing, terminating, or 

dismissing the case.31 Immigration judges render oral or written decisions 

at the end of immigration court proceedings. EOIR uses its case 

management system to internally record events, actions, decisions, and 

workflow for all immigration cases. Figure 4 describes the general 

process for removal proceedings in immigration courts.

 29See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4).

30The removal order becomes administratively final when all avenues for review or appeal 

through EOIR have been exhausted or waived. See 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1.

31A respondent who is deemed an “arriving alien” may be permitted to voluntarily withdraw 

their application for admission during removal proceedings where certain requirements are

satisfied, including that the respondent intends, and has the means, to depart immediately 

from the United States. See 8 U.S.C. §1225(a)(4); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.1(d). Voluntary 

departure refers to an order from an immigration judge that permits aliens to leave the 

country on their own within a designated amount of time in lieu of formal removal; and 

failure to comply with such an order carries certain immigration and other legal 

consequences. Generally, voluntary departure is permitted at the alien’s own expense. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c. Administrative closure is a procedural tool available to an 

immigration judge which is used, as appropriate under the circumstances, to temporarily 

remove a case from the active calendar. Cases that are administratively closed can be recalendared at a later date. Termination or dismissal of proceedings generally occurs when 

the respondent is found not removable as DHS charged, or meets criteria for cancellation 

of the notice to appear; and it constitutes a conclusion of the proceedings requiring that 

DHS file another charging document to initiate new proceedings. 8 C.F.R. §§ 239.2, 

1239.2(c), (f).
Page 16 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Figure 4: Steps in Immigration Court Removal Proceedings Process

Note: In this figure, a removal order is not entered in conjunction with any relief; and relief refers to 

any form of relief or protection from removal.

In addition to removal proceedings, described above, immigration judges 

conduct other types of hearings as well, including the following:

• Credible Fear Review. Arriving and other designated foreign 

nationals subject to expedited removal and deemed inadmissible as a 

result of seeking entry (or any other immigration benefit) by fraud or 

willful misrepresentation, falsely claiming U.S. citizenship, or lacking 

valid immigration documents and who express a fear of persecution or 

torture, or an intention to apply for asylum, are to be referred by DHS 

to a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) asylum officer 

for a credible fear interview.32 If the asylum officer determines that the 

individual has credible fear of persecution or torture, the individual will 

be referred to an immigration judge for further consideration of the 

 32See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(C), (a)(7), 1225(b); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.30, 208.30. Expedited 

removal under INA § 235(b) is the process by which a DHS immigration officer may, 

subject to statutory criteria, order arriving and other designated foreign nationals removed 

from the United States without a formal removal proceeding under INA § 240.
Page 17 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

asylum and withholding of removal claim in removal proceedings.33 If 

the asylum officer determines that the individual has not established a 

credible fear of persecution or torture, the respondent may request 

review of that determination by an immigration judge who may concur 

with the asylum officer’s credible fear determination and return the 

case to ICE for removal of the individual. However, if the immigration 

judge determines that the individual has a credible fear of persecution 

or torture, the individual is placed in removal proceedings for 

adjudication of their application for relief.

• Reasonable Fear Review. If a foreign national who is subject to 

administrative removal for conviction of an aggravated felony at any 

time after admission, or a reinstated order of removal for having 

illegally reentered the country expresses a fear of persecution or 

torture if removed, DHS refers that individual to a USCIS asylum 

officer to determine whether this individual has a reasonable fear of 

persecution or torture.34 If the asylum officer determines that the 

individual has a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, the 

individual will be referred to an immigration judge solely for

consideration of the request for withholding of removal (“withholdingonly” proceedings); and if the asylum officer determines that the 

individual does not have such reasonable fear, the individual may 

request a review of that determination by an immigration judge.

• Withholding Only. As stated above, USCIS refers foreign nationals 

found to have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture to EOIR for 

“withholding only” proceedings, during which an individual may apply 

for withholding or deferral of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or the United Nations 

Convention Against Torture.35 To qualify for withholding of removal 

 33The term “credible fear of persecution” means that there is a significant possibility, 

taking into account the credibility of the statements made by the individual in support of 

their claim and such other facts as are known to the asylum officer, that such individual 

could establish eligibility for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(v).

348 U.S.C. §§ 1228(b), 1231(a)(5); 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.31, 1208.31, 238.1, 1238.1, 241.8, 

1241.8.

35See Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading 

Treatment or Punishment, art. 3, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85. Obligations of the 

United States under article 3 of the Convention Against Torture were implemented 

pursuant to the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-

277, div. G, tit. XXII, ch. 3, subch. B, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822 to -823 (classified 

at 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note); see also Regulations Concerning the Convention Against 

Torture, 64 Fed. Reg. 8478 (Feb. 19, 1999).
Page 18 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

under INA § 241(b)(3), respondents must establish a clear probability 

that their life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, 

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

political opinion in the proposed country of removal.36 An applicant for 

withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture must 

establish that it is more likely than not that they would be tortured if 

removed to the proposed country of removal.37 An order granting 

withholding of removal does not prevent removal to a third country 

other than the country to which removal has been withheld or 

deferred.38

Immigration judges’ decisions become administratively final at the time of 

issuance, if no further action is taken by either party; or when all avenues 

for appeal through the BIA, the highest administrative body within DOJ for 

interpreting and applying immigration law, or review by the Attorney 

General, have been exhausted or waived.39 The BIA appeals are 

reviewed either by a single BIA member or by a three-member panel. In 

general, a single BIA member decides the case unless the case falls into 

 368 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16, 1208.16.

378 C.F.R. §§ 208.16, 1208.16, 208.17, 1208.17, 208.18, 1208.18.

38Other types of immigration court cases include “Asylum Only,” in which immigration 

judges determine whether certain individuals who are not entitled to a removal hearing 

(crewmen, stowaways, Visa Waiver Program travelers, and those ordered removed from 

the United States on security grounds) are eligible for asylum or withholding of removal 

under INA § 241(b)(3) or the Convention Against Torture; “Claimed Status,” in which 

immigration judges review DHS’s negative determination as to whether an individual in 

expedited removal proceedings has a valid claim to U.S. citizenship, lawful permanent 

residency, refugee, or asylum status; and “Rescission,” in which immigration judges 

determine whether a lawful permanent resident should have his or her permanent resident 

status rescinded because he or she was not entitled to it at the time it was granted. 

Immigration judges also make decisions on motions to reopen cases or reconsider prior 

decisions and conduct bond redetermination hearings in which they review custody and 

bond decisions made by DHS, among other things. 

39See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(b), (h), 1003.3(a)(1), 1003.38, 1241.1.
Page 19 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

one of six categories that require a decision by a panel of three 

members.40

The BIA’s decisions can be reviewed by the Attorney General.41 After 

exhausting administrative remedies within DOJ, a respondent may appeal 

a final order of removal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the circuit in 

which the immigration judge completed the initial removal proceedings.42

There are 13 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals (circuit courts), which are 

appellate courts that review U.S. District Court and certain administrative 

decisions, such as those made by the BIA. Circuit court decisions on the 

application of relevant immigration law to particular issues are binding on 

the BIA and immigration judges in cases presenting sufficiently similar 

factual scenarios that arise within the circuit court’s territorial jurisdiction.43

 40The BIA refers cases to three-member panels when it determines there may be a need 

to: (1) settle inconsistencies among the rulings of different immigration judges; (2) 

establish a precedent construing the meaning of laws, regulations, or procedures; (3) 

review a decision by an immigration judge or DHS that is not in conformity with the law or 

with applicable precedents; (4) resolve a case or controversy of major national import; (5) 

review a clearly erroneous factual determination by an immigration judge; or (6) reverse 

the decision of an immigration judge or DHS in a final order or a reversal by a single BIA 

member. By a majority vote of the permanent BIA members selected decisions rendered 

by a three-member panel or by the BIA en banc may be designated to serve as published 

legal precedent in all proceedings involving the same issue(s). See 8 C.F.R. § 

1003.1(e)(6), (g).

41See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h).

42See 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

43The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Federal and D.C. Circuits do not have jurisdiction 

over appeals from the BIA because they lack subject matter and territorial jurisdiction, 

respectively, over the immigration courts.
Page 20 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Our analysis of EOIR’s annual immigration court system caseload—the 

number of open cases before the court during a single fiscal year—

showed that it grew 44 percent from fiscal years 2006 through 2015 due 

to an increase in the case backlog, while case receipts remained steady 

and the courts completed fewer cases. For the purpose of our analysis, 

the immigration courts’ annual caseload is comprised of three parts: (1) 

the number of new cases filed by DHS in the form of new NTAs (also 

called new case receipts); (2) the number of other case receipts the court 

receives due to motions to reopen, reconsider, or recalendar, or remands 

from the BIA; and (3) the case backlog—the number of cases pending 

from previous years that remain open at the start of a new fiscal year.44

During this 10-year period, the immigration courts’ overall annual 

caseload grew from approximately 517,000 cases in fiscal year 2006 to 

about 747,000 cases in fiscal year 2015, as shown in figure 5.45

 44We use the term caseload to denote the workload or volume of open cases before the 

courts during a given time period. These cases may or may not have been adjudicated by 

the courts during the time period. This definition may be different from how EOIR uses the 

term in its annual statistics yearbook or other publications. Cases that remain open at the 

start of a new fiscal year—pending cases—are cases that have not yet received an initial 

completion. An initial completion is an initial ruling on the case by an immigration judge. 

This does not include later motions to reopen, reconsider, or remand a case as those 

actions can occur many years after the initial decision and are out of the control of 

immigration court judges.

45App. II provides the caseload for each of EOIR’s 58 courts for fiscal years 2012 through 

2015, including new and other case receipts and the case backlog.

Immigration Courts’

Caseload Grew Due 

to an Increased Case 

Backlog, Posing 

Challenges to 

Stakeholders

The Immigration Courts’

Caseload and Case 

Backlog Grew As 

Immigration Courts 

Completed Fewer Cases
Page 21 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Figure 5: Immigration Courts’ Annual Caseload and Component Parts, Fiscal Years 

2006 through 2015

According to our analysis, total case receipts remained about the same in 

fiscal years 2006 and 2015 but fluctuated over the 10-year period, with 

new case receipts generally decreasing and other case receipts generally 

increasing. Specifically, there were about 305,000 total case receipts in 

fiscal year 2006 and 310,000 in fiscal year 2015. The number of new 

cases filed in immigration courts decreased over the 10-year period but 

fluctuated within this period. New case receipts increased about four 

percent between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2009, from about 

247,000 cases to about 256,000 cases, but declined each year after fiscal 

year 2009, with the exception of an increase in fiscal year 2014. Overall, 

new case receipts declined by 20 percent after fiscal year 2009 to about 

202,000 during fiscal year 2015. Other case receipts, such as motions to 

reopen, reconsider, or recalendar, or remands from the BIA, increased by 

about 50,000 over the 10-year period, from about 58,000 cases in fiscal 

year 2006 to about 108,000 cases in fiscal year 2015.
Page 22 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Our analysis showed that EOIR’s case backlog more than doubled from 

fiscal years 2006 through 2015. In particular, the case backlog remained 

relatively steady from fiscal years 2006 through 2009 and then rose each 

year starting in fiscal year 2010. The immigration courts had a backlog of 

about 212,000 cases pending at the start of fiscal year 2006 and the 

median pending time for those cases was 198 days. By the beginning of 

fiscal year 2009, the case backlog declined slightly to 208,000 cases. 

From fiscal years 2010 through 2015, the case backlog grew an average 

of 38,000 cases per year. At the start of fiscal year 2015, immigration 

courts had a backlog of about 437,000 cases pending and the median 

pending time for those cases was 404 days.

Further, as a result of the case backlog some immigration courts were 

scheduling hearings several years in the future, according to EOIR 

documentation. As of February 2, 2017, half of courts had master 

calendar hearings scheduled as far as January 2018 or beyond and had 

individual merits hearings, during which immigration judges generally 

render case decisions, scheduled as far as June 2018 or beyond. 

However, the range of hearing dates varied; as of February 2, 2017, one 

court had master calendar hearings scheduled no further than March 

2017 while another court had master calendar hearings scheduled in May 

2021—more than 4 years in the future. Similarly, courts varied in the 

extent to which individual merits hearings were scheduled into the future. 

As of February 2, 2017, one court had individual hearings scheduled out 

no further than March 2017 while another court had scheduled individual 

hearings 5 years into the future—February 2022.46

The increase in the immigration court case backlog occurred as 

immigration courts completed fewer cases annually. Specifically, the 

number of immigration court cases completed annually declined by 31 

percent from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2015—from about 287,000 

cases completed in fiscal year 2006 to about 199,000 completed in 2015, 

as shown in figure 6.

 46EOIR officials stated that court staff may schedule non-priority cases to dates several 

years in the future to accommodate large influxes of priority cases in the nearer term. 

According to these officials, court staff intend to reschedule these cases to more 

proximate dates as space on the docket becomes available. However, the extent to which 

EOIR will be able to advance hearing dates for non-priority cases is uncertain.
Page 23 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Figure 6: Immigration Court Completed Cases, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015

According to our analysis, while the number of cases completed annually 

declined, the number of immigration judges increased between fiscal year 

2006 and fiscal year 2015, which resulted in a lower number of case 

completions per immigration judge at the end of the 10-year period. 

Specifically, the number of immigration judges increased by 17 percent, 

from 212 in fiscal year 2006 to 247 in fiscal year 2015, while the 

immigration court caseload increased by 44 percent during the same 

period.47 Further, the number of total case completions per immigration 

judge decreased on average 5 percent per year over the 10-year period—

from 1,356 per immigration judge in fiscal year 2006 to 807 per 

immigration judge in fiscal year 2015. EOIR officials told us that EOIR 

 47On average, the number of judges increased by 2 percent each year from fiscal year 

2006 to fiscal year 2015. The number of judges increased overall from fiscal year 2006 

through fiscal year 2011 and then declined during fiscal years 2012 through 2014 before 

increasing again in fiscal year 2015. However, the number of judges from fiscal year 2012 

through 2015 remained higher than the number of judges in fiscal year 2010, although the 

number of completions fell each year from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2014, but 

increased slightly in fiscal year 2015. EOIR officials stated that the decrease in the 

number of judges from 2012 through 2014 was due to a department-wide hiring freeze in 

place from January 21, 2011 through February 10, 2014. 
Page 24 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

engaged in hiring during this period and that new judges initially complete 

fewer cases as they are learning on the job, which contributed to the 

decrease in case completions per judge.

In addition, cases decided by immigration judges on the merits of the 

case (merit decisions) declined, while cases completed through 

administrative closure of the case increased over this period.48

Specifically, the percentage of merit decisions declined from 95 percent of 

all cases completed in fiscal year 2006 to 77 percent of all cases 

completed in fiscal year 2015. We found that when immigration judges 

made merit-based decisions, immigration judges ordered fewer 

respondents removed and provided relief or terminated more cases. 

Particularly, the percentage of respondents whom immigration judges 

ordered removed declined from 77 percent of all completed cases in fiscal 

year 2006 to 52 percent of all completed cases in fiscal year 2015. 

Conversely, the percentage of cases in which the immigration judge 

granted relief or terminated removal proceedings grew from 18 percent of 

 48Immigration judges may, under appropriate circumstances, and either on their own 

initiative or at the request of either DHS or the respondent, administratively close a case,

thus removing it from their calendar. An immigration judge may grant administrative 

closure for various reasons, including in cases for which DHS exercises prosecutorial 

discretion and requests a case to be administratively closed because the respondent does 

not meet enforcement priorities (for DHS’s current removal priorities, and guidance on use 

of prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement, see Enhancing Public Safety in the 

Interior of the United States, Exec. Order No. 13768, § 5, 82 Fed. Reg. 8799, 8800 (Jan. 

30, 2017), and John Kelly, Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National 

Interest (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 20, 2017)). A judge may also administratively close a 

case where the respondent plans to apply for certain immigration benefits under the 

jurisdiction of USCIS, such as an unaccompanied alien child’s initial asylum claim, or other 

forms of relief due to specific circumstances such as being the victim of a severe form of 

trafficking in persons or certain qualifying crimes. An immigration judge can return an 

administratively closed case to the calendar at his or her discretion or at the request of the 

respondent or DHS attorney. The primary consideration for an immigration judge in 

evaluating whether to administratively close or recalendar proceedings is whether the 

party in opposition has provided a persuasive reason for the case to proceed and be 

resolved on the merits; and in considering administrative closure, the judge cannot review 

whether an alien falls within DHS’s enforcement priorities. Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I. & N. 

Dec. 17 (BIA 2017).
Page 25 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

all completed cases to 24 percent of all completed cases.49 The 

administrative closure of cases grew by 21 percentage points, from 2 

percent of completed cases to 23 percent of completed cases over this 

same time period.

Initial case completion time increased more than fivefold over the 10-year 

period.50 Overall, the median initial completion time for cases increased 

from 43 days in fiscal year 2006 to 286 days in fiscal year 2015. In 

particular, the median case completion time doubled from fiscal year 2011 

to fiscal year 2012 and then more than doubled again from fiscal year 

2012 to fiscal year 2013 before declining slightly in fiscal year 2014. 

However, as shown in table 1, case completion times varied by case type 

and detention status. For example, the median number of days to 

complete a removal case, which comprised 97 percent of EOIR’s 

caseload for this time period, increased by 700 percent from 42 days in 

fiscal year 2006 to 336 days in fiscal year 2015. However, the median 

length of time it took to complete a credible fear case, which comprised 

less than one percent of EOIR’s caseload during this period, took 5 days 

to complete in fiscal year 2006 as well as in fiscal year 2015.51 EOIR 

officials attributed the increase in case completion times after fiscal year 

2011 to the number of relief applications filed by respondents as well as 

changes in the types of applications respondents filed. In particular, EOIR 

officials stated that asylum and withholding applications increased while 

voluntary departure applications decreased.

 49An immigration judge may terminate, or dismiss, a case related to a particular charging 

document if the judge decides that DHS has not established that the respondent is 

removable as charged, or where criteria are met for cancellation of the notice to appear; 

thus constituting a conclusion of the proceedings unless and until DHS files charges again 

in order to initiate new proceedings. 8 C.F.R. §§ 239.2, 1239.2(c), (f). An immigration 

judge may grant relief or protection from removal to a respondent who is otherwise 

removable, provided that the applicable eligibility requirements are satisfied, and with 

respect to discretionary relief, such as asylum, that a grant is warranted as a matter of 

discretion. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4).

50Initial completion time refers to the time period between the date EOIR received the NTA 

date from DHS and the date an immigration judge issued an initial ruling on the case. 

51As previously discussed, if an asylum officer determines that an alien has not 

established a credible fear of persecution or torture in their country of origin, the individual 

may request review of that determination by an immigration judge.
Page 26 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Table 1: Median Number of Days for Initial Case Completion by Case Type, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015

Case Type 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Removal 42 36 28 29 56 67 140 321 316 336

Asylum Only 459 532 390 379 320 322 363 348 410 496

Credible Fear 5 2 2 2 4 5 5 4 5 5

Reasonable 

Fear 7 7 8 11 7 7 7 7 8 8

Withholding 

Only 90 115 109 106 114 108 118 98 86 103

Other cases 29 24 67 73 127 224 146 118 218 127

All 43 36 28 29 55 65 135 301 262 286

Source: GAO analysis of Executive Office for Immigration Review data. | GAO-17-438

Note: The median number of days for case completion for other cases represents a weighted median 

of the following case types: Claimed Status, Rescission, Continued Detention Review, Nicaraguan 

Adjustment and Central American Relief Act cases, Exclusion, and Deportation cases. According to 

EOIR, until April 1997, the two major types of cases adjudicated by immigration courts were exclusion 

and deportation cases. Provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 

of 1996 established six new types of cases: removal, credible fear review, reasonable fear review, 

claimed status review, asylum only, and withholding only. Deportation and exclusions case types are 

no longer reported as receipts due to changes in the law. Initial completion time refers to the time 

period between the date EOIR received the NTA date from DHS and the date an immigration judge 

issued an initial ruling on the case.

Initial case completion times for both detained and non-detained 

respondents more than quadrupled from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal 

year 2015.52 The median case completion time for non-detained cases, 

which comprised 79 percent of EOIR’s caseload from fiscal year 2006 to 

fiscal year 2015, grew more than fivefold from 96 days to 535 days during 

this same period. Similarly, the median number of days to complete a 

detained case, which as discussed later in this report judges are to 

prioritize on their dockets, quadrupled over the 10-year period, increasing 

from 7 days in fiscal year 2006 to 28 days in fiscal year 2015.

 52We include cases in which the respondent was originally detained and then later 

released among the non-detained cases. 
Page 27 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

EOIR officials, immigration court staff, DHS attorneys, and other experts 

and stakeholders we interviewed provided various potential reasons why 

the case backlog may have increased and case completion times slowed 

in recent years, as well as identified challenges posed by the backlog. 

Despite an increase in immigration judges over the 10-year period, 

immigration judges, court administrators, DHS attorneys, experts and 

stakeholders told us that a lack of court personnel, such as immigration 

judges, legal clerks, and other support staff, was a contributing factor to 

the case backlog. Further, some of these experts and stakeholders told 

us that EOIR did not have sufficient funding to appropriately staff the 

immigration courts.

EOIR officials, immigration court staff, DHS attorneys, and other experts 

and stakeholders also stated that a surge in new cases, beginning in 

2014, contributed to the case backlog. Further, some of these experts 

and stakeholders told us that the nature of cases resulting from the surge 

exacerbated the effects of the backlog. Specifically, many of the surge 

cases were cases of unaccompanied children, which may take longer to 

adjudicate than other types of cases because, for example, such a child 

in removal proceedings could apply for various forms of relief under the 

jurisdiction of USCIS, including asylum and Special Immigrant Juvenile 

Status. In such cases the immigration judge may administratively close or 

continue the case pending resolution of those matters. Therefore, these 

experts and stakeholders told us that the surge not only added volume to 

the immigration court’s backlog, but resulted in EOIR prioritizing the 

cases of unaccompanied children over cases that may be quicker for 

EOIR to resolve. DHS attorneys, experts, and other stakeholders we 

spoke with stated that immigration judges’ frequent use of continuances 

resulted in delays and increased case lengths that contributed to the 

backlog.53 Immigration judges, court administrators, DHS attorneys, and 

other experts and stakeholders we spoke with also cited issues with the 

availability and quality of foreign language translation as creating 

unnecessary delays in cases. EOIR officials and immigration judges also 

highlighted increasing legal complexity as a contributing factor to longer 

 53An immigration judge has discretionary authority to grant a motion for continuance—a 

temporary adjournment of a case until a different date or time—for good cause shown, 

such as to allow respondents to obtain legal representation or DHS to complete required 

background investigations and security checks. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. For additional 

information on continuances, including the reasons continuances were granted according 

to EOIR data, see app. III.

Stakeholders Cited 

Various Factors That 

Potentially Contributed to 

the Growing Backlog, 

Which Poses Challenges 

to Respondents, 

Attorneys, and Court Staff
Page 28 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

cases and a growing case backlog. In particular, EOIR officials cited 

Supreme Court decisions in 2013 and 2016, which define analytical steps 

a judge must complete in determining whether a criminal conviction 

renders a respondent removable and ineligible for relief.54 Additionally, 

EOIR officials cited a reported growth in bond hearings for detainees, 

particularly in the Ninth Circuit, stemming from that circuit’s 2015 decision 

in Rodriguez v. Robbins, which was being reviewed by the Supreme 

Court as of April 2017.55 We examine some of these issues, such as court 

staffing, case prioritization, and the use of continuances, later in this 

report.

Immigration judges and court staff, DHS attorneys, and other experts and 

stakeholders we interviewed stated that the delays caused by the backlog 

posed challenges to respondents, attorneys, and immigration judges and 

court staff.

Respondents. Seven of the ten experts and stakeholders we contacted 

and staff at three of the immigration courts we visited told us that 

respondents can face challenges due to long delays in scheduling and 

hearing cases and heavy court caseloads. Experts and stakeholders cited 

challenges in one or more of the following areas:

• The ability of respondents to produce witnesses or evidence or to 

obtain pro bono legal representation;

• The ability of respondents with strong claims for relief to work or bring 

family members to the United States; and

• The ability of respondents without sufficient claims for relief to remain 

in the United States longer than if the case had been promptly 

decided.

Four of ten experts and stakeholders we spoke with told us that case 

delays due to the immigration court’s case backlog may decrease 

respondents’ ability to produce witnesses or evidence to support their 

applications for relief. For example, one of these experts and 

stakeholders told us that due to the backlog, merits hearings are 

frequently rescheduled. As a result, witnesses for respondents who need 

 54Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 

2276 (2013), Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013). 

55Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. granted sub nom. Jennings v. 

Rodriguez, 136 S. Ct. 2489 (2016).
Page 29 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

to travel to attend a hearing may be less likely to attend a rescheduled 

hearing. Two of these experts and stakeholders also stated that nondetained respondents can also lose track of witnesses who may be able 

to assist their cases if a significant amount of time passes between the 

respondent’s original merits hearing date and the respondent’s 

rescheduled hearing date. Further, according to four of the ten experts 

and stakeholders, private bar attorneys may be hesitant to accept pro 

bono cases because it is difficult for them to commit to representing a 

respondent at a merits hearing that may be scheduled several years into 

the future. Additionally, five of the ten experts and stakeholders also 

stated that due to the length of some cases, respondents who may have 

been eligible for relief at one point earlier in the case may no longer be 

eligible by the time the case is heard because the respondents’

circumstances have changed. For example, a respondent who is 

otherwise removable may be eligible for cancellation of removal if it would 

result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the respondent’s 

U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, or child.56

However, if there is a material change in circumstances regarding a 

respondent’s qualifying family member, such as a child who turns 21, this 

could adversely affect the respondent’s eligibility for relief.

One immigration judge and two of the ten experts and stakeholders also 

noted that delays due to the case backlog may result in some 

respondents with strong cases for relief not obtaining the relief to which 

they are entitled in a timely manner. For example, one of the experts and 

stakeholders told us that some respondents with strong applications for 

relief, such as asylum, would generally have to wait to seek derivative 

status for qualifying family member(s) not initially included in the asylum 

application until the respondent’s own asylum claim has been granted.57

In light of the case backlog, which results in some cases not being heard 

for years, this may result in further hardship for the respondents with valid 

claims for relief. Two of the ten experts and stakeholders told us that 

respondents may not be able to work while awaiting their case 

 56See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).

57An asylum applicant may include his or her accompanying spouse or unmarried children 

under age 21 in the benefit request, or, if not included in the application for asylum, the 

asylee may, within 2 years of being granted asylum, request derivative status for such 

qualifying spouse and children, allowing them to join the asylee in the United States. See 

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.21, 1208.21.
Page 30 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

decisions.58 Conversely, two immigration judges, DHS attorneys from 

three offices, EOIR officials, and four of the ten experts and stakeholders 

stated that the case backlog may also result in respondents without 

sufficient claims remaining in the United States far longer than if the case 

had been promptly decided. EOIR officials stated that due to the length of 

some cases, respondents who otherwise would not have strong claims for 

relief can develop a cognizable claim that the respondent would not have 

been able to make had the case been adjudicated more quickly, or the 

extended time allows the respondent to establish ties to the United States 

which could support an existing claim.

Attorneys. DHS attorneys from six offices, one immigration judge, and 

one of the ten experts and stakeholders also cited caseload management 

and the increased cost of long cases as backlog-related challenges for 

private bar and DHS attorneys. DHS attorneys from five offices noted that 

it is difficult to assign cases to specific attorneys for the entire life of the 

case because they do not know which attorneys will be available when 

the merits hearing ultimately occurs, which can be months or years after a 

master calendar hearing in the case. According to these DHS attorneys, 

they must often assign a new attorney to the case, which requires the 

newly-assigned attorney to prepare for a case shortly before the merits 

hearing. As a result, according to these same attorneys, the amount of 

time spent per attorney in case preparation may increase, which 

ultimately increases the cost per case to DHS. In addition, one 

immigration judge posited that some private bar attorneys may miss filing 

dates due to the backlog and associated delays in hearing cases.

Court Staff. Immigration court officials, experts, and stakeholders we 

spoke with cited challenges for immigration court staff, including 

increased workloads, limited time for administrative tasks, and decreased 

morale. Immigration judges from four of the six courts we visited told us 

that delays result in increased work, such as additional motions and 

evidence to review for each case, changes in immigration law that occur 

over the life of a case that the immigration judge must consider, and 

increasingly complicated cases that require more time to complete than if 

 58USCIS adjudicates applications for employment authorization and respondents may or 

may not be legally permitted to apply for work authorization while their case is pending. 

There are certain classes of respondents who may apply for and obtain employment 

authorization while awaiting a determination as to their applications for relief. These 

include respondents who have filed for asylum, cancellation of removal, or adjustment of 

status. See 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c). According to EOIR officials, in the majority of cases, 

asylum applicants receive employment authorization while their asylum claim is pending.
Page 31 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

the hearings for these cases had been scheduled and held in a shorter 

timeframe. Immigration judges from four of the six courts we visited also 

told us that the growing backlog increases the amount of clerical work for 

court staff because they must continue to process motions and other 

paperwork for pending cases irrespective of when the next hearing date is 

scheduled. One immigration judge told us that as cases are pending they 

accumulate more filings and ultimately take longer to review.

Immigration judges from five of the six courts we contacted also stated 

that they do not have sufficient time to conduct administrative tasks, such 

as case-related legal research or staying updated on changes to 

immigration law. Further, one immigration judge stated that in cases 

where immigration judges must consider hardship to family members, 

such as for a cancellation of removal case, delays in processing the case 

may create additional hardships that the immigration judge must consider 

in deciding the case. For example, the longer a respondent remains in the 

United States, the greater the likelihood that the respondent could create 

ties to the United States including through marriage or parenthood that 

the immigration judge would consider, as appropriate, before deciding on 

any applications for relief.59 Additionally, as a result of the backlog, 

immigration judges from three of the six courts reported that court staff 

had feelings of low morale and job-related stress.

According to our analysis, from fiscal years 2006 through 2015, the 

number of new appeals filed with the BIA decreased by 37 percent while 

the number of appeals completed declined by 33 percent. The appeal 

backlog—the number of appeals pending at the start of each fiscal year—

declined by 40 percent over this same period. Specifically, the number of 

new appeals filed with the BIA annually decreased from about 47,000 

appeals filed in fiscal year 2006 to about 29,000 filed in fiscal year 2015. 

During this period, the number of appeals the BIA completed declined by 

33 percent, from about 51,000 in fiscal year 2006 to about 34,000 in fiscal 

year 2015. Because new appeal receipts declined at a faster rate than 

appeals completed from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2015, the appeal 

backlog decreased, from about 42,000 appeals pending at the start of 

 59For example, cancellation of removal may be available for an otherwise removable nonpermanent resident alien provided, among other things, the respondent establishes that 

removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his or her spouse, 

parent, or child, who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. See 8 U.S.C. § 

1229b(b).

BIA Appeal Receipts 

Declined at a Faster Rate 

than Appeal Completions, 

Resulting in a Decreased 

Backlog
Page 32 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

fiscal year 2006 to about 25,000 at the start of fiscal year 2015. Further, 

the number of appeals pending at the beginning of fiscal year 2016 

declined to about 20,000 appeals. Cases that were pending at the start of 

fiscal year 2015 had a median pending time of 211 days, 19 days shorter 

than the median pending time for appeals that had been pending at the 

start of fiscal year 2006.

Our analysis showed that over the 10-year period, the largest category of 

BIA appeal completions were appeals of removal decisions by 

immigration judges, but this category declined from 55 percent of all 

appeals completed in fiscal year 2006 to 42 percent of all appeals 

completed in fiscal year 2015. The completion of DHS decision appeals 

increased from about 5,000 in fiscal year 2006 to about 7,000 in fiscal 

year 2015, growing from 10 percent of appeals completed in fiscal year 

2006 to 19 percent of appeals completed in fiscal year 2015. Appeals of 

other decisions by immigration judges, such as appeals of bond 

redeterminations, motions to reopen when the original case was held in 

absentia, and interlocutory appeals, remained relatively steady during this 

10-year period, accounting for 32 percent of appeals in fiscal year 2006 

and 35 percent of appeals in fiscal year 2015.

As previously discussed, single-member or three-member BIA panels 

review all appeals. From fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2015, single BIA 

members annually reviewed 90 percent or more of completed appeals. 

Three-member panels consistently reviewed 10 percent or less of 

completed appeals throughout the 10-year period. Further, the number of 

appeals completed by three-member panels averaged about 3,000 

appeals per year from fiscal years 2006 through 2015.

The overall median time it took the BIA to complete any type of appeal 

decreased by 29 percent, from 317 days in fiscal year 2006 to 224 days 
Page 33 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

in fiscal year 2015; however, changes in appeal completion times varied 

across appeal types, as shown in figure 7.60

Figure 7: Board of Immigration Appeals Completions by Appeal Type and Median 

Completion Time, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015

Note: This figure does not include completions of appeals involving Asylum Only, Claimed Status, 

Credible Fear, Deportation, Exclusion, Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act 

cases, Reasonable Fear, Rescission or Withholding Only. From fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2015, 

these cases cumulatively accounted for two percent of all completed appeals.

 60To calculate the length of a BIA appeal, we counted the number of days between the 

date the respondent filed the appeal and the date the BIA completed the appeal. We 

included in this overall median the time it took to complete appeals of DHS decisions. 

EOIR officials told us that they do not include appeal completion times for DHS decisions 

when calculating appeal completion times because DHS is initially responsible for the 

management of DHS decision appeals, including receipt of the Notice of Appeal. 

However, we included time to complete DHS decisions in the overall median time to 

illustrate how long it took to complete the appeal from the perspective of the parties 

involved, not how long it to the BIA to complete the portion of the appeal for which it is 

responsible. 
Page 34 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

EOIR could help address its staffing challenges, such as not hiring 

enough immigration judges to meet its authorized number of judges, and 

the case backlog through better workforce planning and hiring practices. 

EOIR uses various inputs to estimate staffing needs on an annual basis. 

However, these annual estimates do not account for a number of factors 

that affect EOIR’s staffing needs, and EOIR has not developed and 

implemented a workforce plan to guide its efforts for identifying and 

addressing staffing needs. According to EOIR officials, EOIR currently 

estimates staffing needs using an informal approach that considers the 

needs of specific courts, staff availability, and funding. Specifically, EOIR 

calculates its immigration judge staffing needs by dividing its entire 

projected caseload for the upcoming fiscal year by the average number of 

cases completed per immigration judge in the previous year. EOIR then 

calculates its support staff needs using a predetermined ratio of support 

staff per immigration judge.

However, this estimate does not account for long-term staffing needs, 

reflect EOIR’s performance goals, or account for differences in the 

complexity of different types of cases immigration judges are required to 

complete. For example, in developing this estimate EOIR does not 

calculate staffing needs beyond the next fiscal year or take into account 

resources needed to achieve the agency’s case completion goals, which 

as discussed later in this report, establish target time frames in which 

immigration judges are to complete a specific percentage of certain types 

of cases. Furthermore, according to EOIR data, approximately 39 percent 

of all immigration judges are currently eligible to retire. However, EOIR 

has not systematically accounted for these impending retirements in 

calculating its future staffing needs.

EOIR’s most recent Strategic Plan, which covered 2008-2013, stated that 

EOIR would create staffing plans for each office that take into account 

EOIR Could Improve 

its Workforce 

Planning, Hiring, and 

Technology Utilization 

to Help Address the 

Case Backlog

Better Workforce Planning 

and Hiring Practices Could 

Help EOIR Address 

Staffing Challenges and 

the Case Backlog
Page 35 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

new skills needed to achieve EOIR’s mission in the future.61 However, 

according to EOIR officials, EOIR did not complete these staffing plans 

due to a lack of resources. In 2016, EOIR awarded a contract to a 

consulting company for the development of a workforce planning report. 

Under this contract, the consultant is to provide, by April 2017, objective 

and standardized measures of judicial and court staff workloads and a 

method or formula by which EOIR can assess the need for additional 

resources. Additionally, according to EOIR officials, as of February 2017, 

the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge had initiated a study of the 

activities critical to case completion and the time it takes court staff to 

complete these activities. However, EOIR was unable to provide 

documentation describing the specific goals of this study.

EOIR’s upcoming workforce planning report and the study of case 

activities are positive steps that could help strengthen EOIR’s strategic 

workforce planning efforts; however, they do not include key elements of 

a strategic workforce plan that would help EOIR better address current 

and future staffing needs. Strategic workforce planning, also called 

human capital planning, focuses on developing long-term strategies for 

acquiring, developing, and retaining an organization’s total workforce to 

meet the needs of the future, as described in figure 8. We have identified 

key principles for effective strategic workforce planning that describe 

several important elements of a strategic workforce plan.62 For example, 

the key principles state that agencies should determine the critical skills 

and competencies that will be needed to achieve current and future 

programmatic results. Our key principles also state that agencies should 

develop strategies that are tailored to address gaps in number, 

deployment, and alignment of human capital approaches for enabling and 

sustaining the contributions of all critical skills and competencies. Further, 

the key principles state that agencies should monitor and evaluate the 

agency’s progress toward its human capital goals and the contribution 

that human capital results have made toward achieving programmatic 

results.

 61Executive Office for Immigration Review, Fiscal Years 2008-2013 Strategic Plan, 

(Washington D.C.: January 2008). EOIR has not issued another strategic plan since 2013, 

and, according to EOIR officials, has instead sought to execute the goals enumerated in 

DOJ’s Strategic Plan.

62GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, 

GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003). 
Page 36 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Figure 8: Strategic Workforce Planning Process

EOIR’s initial contract for the workforce planning report required the 

development of a method or formula for assessing the need for additional 

immigration judges and staff, but it did not require the contractor to

identify critical skills and competencies or tailor identified requirements to 

current or future programmatic results. For example, EOIR’s contract 

states that the report will identify the volume of judicial and staff resources 

necessary to allow EOIR to better fulfill its mission of timely adjudication, 

as defined by completions that meet EOIR’s case completion goals. 

However, as discussed later in this report, EOIR does not have case 

completion goals for non-detained cases, and the majority of EOIR’s 

cases—90 percent of the immigration courts’ total caseload in fiscal year 

2015—do not fit within a case completion goal. Therefore, EOIR’s new 

resource allocation model to be provided under the contract is unlikely to 

account for target time frames for the adjudication of the vast majority of 

cases. Moreover, although EOIR’s upcoming report is to identify gaps in 
Page 37 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

the number of staff needed, the contract does not require the contractor 

to develop strategies or approaches to address those gaps or analyze the 

range of flexibilities in hiring available under current authorities. In 

addition, EOIR’s contract does not contain procedures for monitoring or 

evaluating progress toward its human capital goal of developing a skilled 

and diverse workforce. EOIR officials stated that the contract does not 

include these items because EOIR has the option of extending the 

contract and requesting additional deliverables.63

Following our raising of these issues with EOIR in February 2017, EOIR 

officials stated that the agency is beginning to develop a strategic plan for 

fiscal years 2018 through 2023 that will address the agency’s human 

capital needs. Specifically, according to EOIR officials, the strategic plan 

and follow-on plans will collectively include strategies to ensure that shortand long-term human capital needs are met as well as milestones to 

monitor and evaluate the agency’s progress towards meeting these goals. 

However, EOIR was unable to provide documentation related to the 

content of this strategic plan. In February 2017, EOIR officials also told us 

that the agency had recently established an inter-component 

management staffing committee that will determine the optimal number 

and type of positions needed in each court. Additionally, in February 

2017, EOIR provided us a document indicating that the agency has 

started to assess in which immigration courts to place 25 judges it may be 

allocated during fiscal year 2017. These are positive steps; however, in 

the absence of any follow-on workforce planning contracts or 

documentation related to EOIR’s strategic plan, the extent to which these 

efforts will result in effective strategic workforce planning reflective of key 

principles is uncertain. Further, while EOIR’s recent establishment of a 

staffing committee and efforts to determine where to place new judges 

are good initial steps, developing and implementing a strategic workforce 

plan that addresses key principles for effective strategic workforce 

planning, such as including a determination of critical skills and 

competencies, strategies to address skill and competency gaps, and 

monitoring and evaluating progress made, would better position EOIR to 

address current and future staffing needs.

Additionally, EOIR does not have efficient practices for hiring new 

immigration judges, which has contributed to immigration judges being 

 63The contract’s period of performance includes a base year with the option for EOIR to 

extend the contract with additional deliverables over a 4-year period.
Page 38 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

staffed below authorized levels. We have previously reported that 

agencies should self-assess their human capital policies and procedures, 

including hiring, to ensure they are accomplishing agency policy and 

programmatic goals.64 Specifically, we have reported that agencies 

should have a recruiting and hiring strategy that is targeted to fill shortand long-term human capital needs. However, EOIR has not assessed its 

hiring process or developed a formal hiring strategy, and its hiring 

process has not kept pace with agency-identified immigration judge 

staffing needs or authorized staffing levels. EOIR identified a need to 

continue to aggressively hire immigration judges, according to its fiscal 

year 2016 congressional budget justification, and requested funding for 

55 new immigration judge positions to, among other things, address its 

caseload and improve the efficiency of the immigration courts. As 

mentioned earlier, the number of immigration judges has increased from 

212 judges in fiscal year 2006 to 247 in fiscal year 2015. However, as 

Congress has allocated funds to increase the authorized number of 

judges, the actual number of immigration judges has consistently lagged 

behind authorized levels, resulting in staffing shortfalls. For example, in 

fiscal year 2016, EOIR was allocated 374 immigration judge positions and 

had 289 judges on board at the end of the fiscal year. EOIR officials 

attributed these gaps to delays in the hiring process. Furthermore, as 

previously discussed, about 39 percent of its immigration judges are 

currently eligible for retirement according to EOIR officials.

EOIR hires judges through a multi-step process, involving both EOIR and 

DOJ. EOIR officials first issue a vacancy announcement, review and 

interview applicants, and identify top candidates. EOIR then forwards the 

top candidates to the DOJ Office of the Deputy Attorney General, where a 

panel reviews the applicants and selects candidates for appointment by 

the Attorney General.65 The candidate may then receive an initial 

employment offer, which the candidate has 21 days to accept or reject. 

Upon acceptance, the candidate must undergo a background 

 64GAO, Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders, 

GAO/OCG-00-14G (Washington, DC: September 2000). 

65Under U.S. immigration law, an “immigration judge” is an attorney appointed by the 

Attorney General as an administrative judge within EOIR, qualified to conduct specified 

classes of proceedings, including formal removal proceedings under INA § 240. See 8 

U.S.C. § 1101(b)(4); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10. This appointment procedure, according to EOIR 

officials, drives, in large part, the multi-step hiring process. In addition, a “Board Member”

is an attorney appointed by the Attorney General to act as their delegate in resolving 

administrative appeals. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(1). 
Page 39 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and vetting through 

DOJ’s Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management and Office of 

Legal Counsel. Following this step, the Deputy Attorney General and 

Attorney General both review and approve the candidate’s application 

package a second time. EOIR may then make a formal offer of 

employment to the candidate upon receiving the approval of the Attorney 

General.

EOIR has not assessed its hiring process or developed a hiring strategy 

that is targeted to fill short- and long-term human capital needs. 

According to EOIR officials, this is because EOIR has instead focused on 

improving aspects of its hiring process. For example, EOIR has entered 

into contracts for additional human resource support staff. Under one of 

these contracts, EOIR receives assistance with hiring support staff, 

which, according to EOIR officials, permits EOIR’s human resources staff 

to focus more of their time on immigration judge hiring. Under the other 

contract, EOIR is to receive support onboarding new immigration judges. 

Additionally, EOIR has hired six additional human resources staff 

members and taken steps to improve its hiring process, according to 

EOIR officials.66 Specifically, prior to the contracts increasing EOIR’s 

human resources support, the agency’s human resources staff directly 

referred all applications to the Assistant Chief Immigration Judges who 

initially reviewed applications and selected the interviewees. According to 

EOIR officials, this method saved some time in the hiring process 

because, for example, most applicants who were of sufficient caliber to be

identified by the Assistant Chief Immigration Judges as candidates for the 

position already met the basic qualifications that human resources staff 

looked for in their initial review of applications.67

 66In addition, according to EOIR officials, in 2012 EOIR received approval from DOJ to 

change the requirements of the hiring process so that EOIR and DOJ could, following a 

preliminary background screening, temporarily appoint most immigration judge candidates 

before their full background investigations are completed. EOIR officials stated that this 

change reduced the hiring process by months. However, in 2015 DOJ rescinded this 

authority to temporarily appoint immigration judges, according to these same officials. 

67According to EOIR officials, following the inclusion of additional human resources staff in 

2015, EOIR’s Office of Human Resources reverted to its former process of human 

resources staff first reviewing all applications for candidate qualifications before referring 

the applications to the Assistant Chief Immigration Judges for further review. EOIR 

officials stated that while this change in the hiring process worked well, they did not see 

the need to continue this revised process in light of additional human resources staff for 

reviewing applications.
Page 40 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

However, our analysis of EOIR hiring data found that from 2011 to August 

2016, EOIR took an average of more than 2 years—742 days—to hire 

new immigration judges.68 According to EOIR officials, this time period 

included a 3-year hiring freeze from January 2011 through February 2014 

that prolonged the hiring process. When we only included hires initiated 

after the hiring freeze ended in February 2014, we found that EOIR took 

an average of 647 days to hire an immigration judge. EOIR officials also 

attributed the length of the hiring process to delays in the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation background check process, which is largely outside of 

EOIR’s control. However, our analysis found that other processes within 

EOIR’s control accounted for a greater share of the total hiring time. In 

fiscal year 2015, EOIR began tracking the immigration judge hiring 

process in greater detail by maintaining a spreadsheet listing key dates in 

the process. Prior to 2015, EOIR did not track all key dates in the 

process, such as dates associated with the background check process, in 

its hiring files. For judges hired since EOIR began tracking these dates 

until August 2016, our analysis found that background checks accounted 

for an average of about 41 days.69 However, for the same period our 

analysis found that an average of 135 days elapsed between the date 

EOIR posted a vacancy announcement and the date EOIR officials began 

working to fill the vacancy.70 During this period of time, EOIR’s Office of 

Human Resources reviews and prepares the applications for a 

subsequent review by hiring officials in the Office of the Chief Immigration 

Judge. According to EOIR officials, EOIR’s vacancy announcements do 

not necessarily correspond to vacant positions. Rather, EOIR issues 

annual hiring announcements that cover a large number of immigration 

courts before they have determined whether those courts have open 

vacancies. When EOIR seeks to fill a vacancy or a new judge position, 

officials begin by determining where the judge should be located. Then, 

 68To calculate the average time it took EOIR to hire an immigration judge, we calculated 

the average number of calendar days between the day EOIR posted a vacancy 

announcement for the position and the day the judge started in the position.

69EOIR cannot track the exact dates the Federal Bureau of Investigation began and 

completed the background checks, but EOIR officials stated that the background check 

generally occurs between the date EOIR submits the background check information to 

DOJ and the date EOIR submits the complete background check information to the Office 

of the Deputy Attorney General for approval. The 41-day average background check time

we cite reflects the period between these two dates.

70To calculate the time EOIR took to begin working to fill the vacancy, we subtracted the 

announcement posting date from the date EOIR began working the vacancy. 
Page 41 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

EOIR officials use the previously-issued vacancy announcements to 

begin identifying candidates for the positions.

Further, our analysis found that since EOIR began tracking key hiring 

dates, an average of 74 days elapsed between the time EOIR began 

working to fill a vacancy and the time EOIR’s Office of Human Resources 

provided a list of qualified applicants to hiring officials.71 EOIR officials 

attributed this length of time to the large number of applicants EOIR 

receives for each vacancy announcement.72 Figure 9 provides an 

overview of the hiring process and key milestones for immigration judges 

hired during or after fiscal year 2015, when EOIR began comprehensively 

tracking dates.

 71To calculate the time EOIR’s Office of Human Resources took to provide a list of 

qualified applicants to hiring officials, we subtracted the date EOIR began working the 

vacancy from the date EOIR hiring officials received human resources’ list of qualified 

applicants. This value excludes seven judges for whom EOIR began working vacancies 

using a list of candidates EOIR’s Office of Human Resources had already provided. 

72According to EOIR officials, EOIR received more than 20,000 applications for 

immigration judge positions during the fiscal year 2014 through 2016 hiring period.
Page 42 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Figure 9: Average Hiring Timeline for Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Immigration Judges, Fiscal Year 2015 

through August 2016

Note: The averages for each segment of the timeline do not sum to 647 due to rounding.

In February 2017, EOIR officials stated that the agency was under a 

hiring freeze as a result of the President’s January 23, 2017 

memorandum freezing the hiring of federal civilian employees, but that 

EOIR planned to request an exception to permit the agency to resume 

hiring.73 The explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2017, states that within the funding provided, EOIR is 

to continue hiring new judges funded in fiscal year 2016 and hire at least 

 73White House, Presidential Memorandum Regarding the Hiring Freeze (Washington, 

D.C.: Jan. 23, 2017).
Page 43 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

10 new immigration judge teams.74 The President’s fiscal year 2018 

budget, released in May 2017, proposed funding to allow EOIR to hire 75 

additional immigration judge teams, including judges and supporting 

staff.75 Uncertainty regarding when and for how long EOIR will be able to 

hire immigration judges coupled with its staffing gaps makes EOIR’s 

ability to hire judges efficiently, when authorized, particularly important. 

EOIR’s beginning to track key dates in its hiring process is a positive step 

toward gathering information needed to assess and improve its hiring 

process. Using this and other information to assess its immigration judge 

hiring process to identify opportunities for efficiency; using the 

assessment results to develop a hiring strategy that targets short- and 

long-term human capital needs; and implementing actions to increase 

efficiency could better position EOIR to hire new judges more quickly and 

address immigration judge staffing gaps, which could improve EOIR’s 

overall operations.

EOIR identified a comprehensive electronic filing (e-filing) capability—a 

means of transmitting documents and other information to immigration 

courts through an electronic medium, rather than on paper—as essential 

to meeting its goals in 2001; however, as of February 2017 EOIR has not 

implemented such a system. In particular, EOIR issued an executive staff 

briefing for an e-filing system in 2001 that stated that only through a fully 

electronic case management and filing system would the agency be able 

to accomplish its goals.76 These goals include, among other things, 

adjudicating all cases in a timely manner while ensuring due process and 

fair treatment for all parties, and promoting internal and external 

communication with court stakeholders.

 74See 163 Cong. Rec. H3327, H3370 (daily ed. May 3, 2017), accompanying Pub. L. No. 

115-31, div. B., 131 Stat. 135 (2017). The explanatory statement further directs DOJ to 

accelerate its recruitment, background investigation, and placement of immigration judge 

teams; and, for fiscal year 2017, to continue to submit monthly performance and operating 

reports to the Committees on Appropriations, to include the status of its hiring and 

deployment of new immigration judge teams. Id.

75The President’s fiscal year 2018 budget states that the proposed funding for immigration 

judge hiring would bring the total number of funded immigration judge teams to 449.

76In 2001, the former EOIR Director charged an executive-level working group with 

analyzing the information technology needs of the agency to include the development of 

an e-filing system. This briefing presents the findings and recommendations of this 

working group, and EOIR provided it to us in response to our request for an e-filing system 

concept of operations. 

EOIR Needs to Better 

Manage Implementation of 

Its Electronic Filing 

Capability
Page 44 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

The briefing cited several benefits of an e-filing system, including:

• Increasing the ability of the immigration courts to track and schedule 

cases;

• Reducing the data-entry, filing, and other administrative tasks 

associated with processing paper case files;

• Improving communication with external court stakeholders, such as 

respondents and attorneys, by providing the ability to file court 

documents from private home and office computers;

• Enabling immigration court staff to have concurrent and immediate 

access to the same case file, as well as the ability to share, annotate, 

and edit documents through e-mail; and

• Allowing immigration court staff and management to conduct analysis 

and strategic planning using the e-filing system’s data to ensure that 

the agency is meeting its goals.

Since 2001, EOIR has been working to develop a comprehensive e-filing 

capability, but has not adhered to several of its stated goals and 

timeframes for implementing this capability. EOIR proposed in the 2001 

briefing that the agency would, following the implementation of a case 

management database in 2002 and successful pilot tests of the e-filing 

system, fully implement the system in 2003. However, EOIR did not 

achieve these goals. Rather, in 2005 EOIR issued an alternatives and 

cost-benefit analysis for a new system known as eWorld, which was to 

serve as a platform for developing an e-filing capability, among other 

functions.77 Specifically, according to this analysis, EOIR planned to 

implement eWorld in four phases: (1) eInfo to provide a single integrated 

case management system to replace the legacy systems; (2) eAccess to 

create web-based internal EOIR and public access mechanisms to 

access EOIR information, including the incorporation of digital audio 

recording capabilities; (3) eFiling to automate document-processing 

capabilities; and (4) ePrecedents to assist judges and BIA members with 

searching and assembling legal and other information pertaining to cases. 

The implementation of these phases, according to this analysis, was 

expected to occur over 7 years and EOIR would develop an e-filing 

technology that would allow, among other things, all parties to 

 77According to EOIR OIT officials, the eWorld project was a multi-year, multi-phased 

project to begin the transition from using paper to electronic documents for EOIR’s official 

records. Under the eWorld effort, EOIR developed applications that set the stage for a 

more integrated information technology environment, according to these officials. 
Page 45 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

electronically file documents with the immigration courts during fiscal year 

2006.

EOIR implemented other components of eWorld, such as a case 

management system and digital audio recording systems in all courts, but 

did not implement the e-filing component during fiscal year 2006, as 

planned. EOIR continued to emphasize the importance of acquiring a 

comprehensive e-filing capability in its most recent strategic plan, which 

covered 2008 to 2013, by establishing the implementation of an e-filing 

system as one of its four strategic goals to achieve excellence in 

management, administration, and customer service.78

It is unclear, due to a transition in oversight responsibility and a lack of 

historical documentation, why EOIR did not fully carry out these efforts to 

implement a comprehensive e-filing system. According to EOIR OIT 

officials, decision-making authority for these e-filing efforts resided with 

EOIR’s Office of Planning, Analysis, and Technology, which has since 

dissolved, and OIT is now responsible for implementing new technology. 

According to these officials, the Office of Planning, Analysis, and 

Technology—which had the decision-making authority for overseeing 

eWorld, including e-filing—may have disposed of records documenting 

reasons for not meeting prior goals and timeframes pursuant to 

mandatory record retention schedules. As a result, OIT officials were 

unable to locate historical documentation on prior efforts, such as 

program baselines or cost estimates.

EOIR OIT officials offered several reasons for not meeting past goals and 

time frames, including the need to develop several incremental technical 

capabilities before implementing a comprehensive e-filing system. EOIR 

has implemented several systems foundational to a comprehensive efiling system since 2001, which have provided additional capabilities, but 

have not yet led to the implementation of an e-filing system. EOIR spent 

approximately $10 million on its case management system and $9 million 

on its digital audio recording system, which were implemented in 2007

and 2010, respectively. The digital audio recording system allows the 

immigration courts to digitally record immigration hearings and provide an 

electronic transcript of the hearings, which was, according to EOIR OIT 

officials, a key capability they needed to develop before implementing a 

 78Executive Office for Immigration Review, Fiscal Years 2008-2013 Strategic Plan

(Washington, D.C.: January 2008).
Page 46 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

comprehensive e-filing system. More recently, in 2015 EOIR implemented 

the eInfo and eRegistration systems, which cost approximately $3.7 

million. The eInfo system, which is different from the system envisioned 

under the eInfo phase of the eWorld platform, is a web-based application 

that allows registered attorneys and fully accredited representatives to 

view their clients’ case information. The information provided by the eInfo 

application is similar to that which is currently available by telephone via 

the Automated Case Information Hotline. The eRegistration system is an 

electronic registry of respondent representation, such as attorneys and 

other accredited representatives and allows respondents’ representatives 

to electronically file the forms indicating respondent representation with 

the immigration courts and the BIA. This application allows for the 

electronic filing of two forms indicating respondent representation, but 

EOIR immigration court officials explained that the forms still need to be 

printed out and placed in the paper case files EOIR maintains.

EOIR OIT officials also explained that prior timeframes and goals were 

not met because the technology needed to develop a comprehensive efiling system was evolving and unavailable at the time. Specifically, 

according to EOIR officials, a single commercial-off-the-shelf solution for 

an e-filing system was unavailable. However, EOIR reported in 2001 that 

it was technologically feasible to develop a comprehensive e-filing system 

and, in 2005, identified two potential e-filing systems in its alternatives 

analysis for the eWorld platform that would have cost approximately the 

same as maintaining the existing paper-based method of filing documents 

with the immigration court. As previously described, it is unclear, due to a 

lack of available historical documentation, what decisions EOIR made 

regarding the e-filing options identified in the 2005 alternatives analysis 

for eWorld. Further, EOIR OIT officials stated in 2016 that it remains 

unlikely that EOIR will be able to implement a single commercial-off-theshelf solution without a fair amount of customization before 

implementation. Additionally, in terms of available technology, other court 

systems, such as the U.S. district courts, courts of appeals, and U.S. 

Bankruptcy Courts were able to begin converting to a comprehensive efiling system in 2001 with the district and bankruptcy courts completing 

their conversion in 2006 and the courts of appeals completing their 

conversion in 2012.

EOIR OIT officials also cited evolving federal government technological 

requirements for data centers, staffing shortages, and a decrease in 

funding as affecting EOIR’s capacity to implement e-filing technology prior 
Page 47 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

to 2016.79 However, EOIR did not demonstrate how evolving data center 

requirements would prohibit EOIR from developing and implementing a 

comprehensive e-filing system because these requirements are designed, 

in part, to encourage IT efficiencies and were not established until 2010 

and 2014 respectively. In regard to EOIR staffing shortages, DOJ and 

EOIR had a hiring freeze, but it did not occur until 2011, nearly 10 years 

after EOIR first envisioned the development of an e-filing capability. 

According to EOIR officials, EOIR’s OIT experienced a significant 

decrease in its budget and staffing during key years of the eWorld effort 

that required the agency to defer costs into 2007 and beyond. 

Specifically, according to EOIR officials, its Office of Planning, Analysis 

and Technology’s budget decreased from approximately $41 million in 

fiscal year 2010 to approximately $30 million in fiscal year 2013. 

However, as previously described, EOIR’s total appropriation increased 

every year from fiscal years 2005 through 2016, except for fiscal years 

2011 and 2013.

EOIR initiated a comprehensive e-filing effort in 2016, but improved 

oversight for this effort could help ensure the successful and timely 

implementation of this capability. In April 2016, EOIR initiated a market 

research effort for a comprehensive e-filing system—the EOIR Courts

and Appeals Systems (ECAS). According to EOIR OIT officials, EOIR 

envisions ECAS to be a web-based system that tracks, displays, and 

manages immigration-related records; routes immigration-related 

documents for the appropriate approvals and decisions; provides 

improved access to select immigration data; allows for electronic filing 

and payment; delivers statistics and reports for enhanced court 

management; and allows for the intergovernmental secure transfer of 

data. Key documents associated with the development of ECAS 

underscore the importance EOIR has identified for implementation of an 

e-filing system. For example, according to EOIR’s statement of work for 

ECAS, EOIR currently relies on a myriad of outdated systems on multiple 

platforms. Further, EOIR stated in its fiscal year 2009 budget justification 

 79Specifically, in regard to government technological requirements, EOIR OIT officials 

explained that the agency has had to consider the requirements imposed by the Office of 

Management and Budget’s 2010 Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative, which 

seeks to consolidate federal agency data centers, among other goals; and the Federal 

Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA), which outlines specific 

requirements for, among other things, the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative. 

Subtitle D of Title VIII, Division A, of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-291, div. A, tit. 

VIII, subtit. D, 128 Stat. 3292, 3438-50 (2014).
Page 48 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

that upon fully implementing an e-filing system EOIR will be able to 

improve the efficiency of its entire adjudication process and that a higher 

percentage of its cases will be completed within target timeframes. 

Additionally, officials in 4 of the 6 immigration courts and DHS attorneys 

in all 6 of the offices we met with reported negative effects due to the 

absence of an e-filing system, such as an increased risk of losing 

documents; increased resources and staff hours spent manually entering 

data into the case management system and filing, storing, and processing 

paper files; and delays due to, and costs incurred by, reliance on sending 

paper documents through the mail. Conversely, officials in 3 of the 6 

immigration courts reported potential challenges in implementing and 

using an e-filing system, such as difficulties for unrepresented 

respondents in accessing and navigating the system, and the need for 

additional court staff to scan existing paper case files and evidence, such 

as marriage licenses and birth certificates into the system.

EOIR OIT officials stated that EOIR is in the early phases of the ECAS 

project and that it will take several years to fully implement ECAS, with 

the first phase of implementation estimated to begin in 2018. Specifically, 

in April 2016, EOIR contracted with a vendor to determine the types of 

commercial-off-the-shelf technologies that are available for implementing 

ECAS. According to EOIR OIT officials, this effort will result in a 

“roadmap” for determining the technical solution EOIR should implement 

for ECAS. The vendor, according to EOIR officials, submitted the 

alternatives analysis and cost estimate for this effort—a key project 

milestone—2 months after it was originally due to EOIR. EOIR OIT 

officials estimated that the process of identifying the ECAS solution, 

gaining approval from EOIR leadership, and requesting proposals from 

potential vendors who will implement this solution will be completed by 

the end of October 2017 and that the contract for implementing ECAS will 

be awarded by January 2018.
Page 49 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Best practices for effective program oversight cite the importance of 

oversight in managing the acquisition and development of IT systems.80

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government also state that 

internal control is a process that should provide reasonable assurance 

that the objectives of the agency are being achieved. 81 Further, 

according to internal control standards, management is to identify risks 

throughout the entity, including the use of new technology in operational 

processes, and design control activities so that the entity meets its 

objectives and addresses related risks. According to leading governance 

practices, to ensure effective program oversight, organizations should, 

among other practices, create an entity for overseeing IT projects; 

document policies and procedures for program governance and 

oversight; monitor program performance and progress toward expected 

cost, schedule, and benefits; ensure that corrective actions are identified 

and assigned to the appropriate parties at the first sign of cost, schedule, 

or performance slippages; and ensure that corrective actions are tracked 

until the desired outcomes are achieved.

In alignment with these best practices, EOIR has documented policies 

and procedures governing how its primary ECAS oversight body—the 

ECAS Executive Committee—will oversee ECAS through the 

development of a proposed ECAS solution. Specifically, the ECAS 

Executive Committee, comprised of representatives from EOIR’s BIA, 

Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, and OIT, among other offices, is 

charged with meeting regularly for ECAS progress reviews, ensuring that 

the agency’s needs are met, and determining and approving ECAS 

solutions. Additionally, to comply with requirements of the Federal 

Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, in 2016 the EOIR 

Investment Review Board was established and is responsible for 

 80Project Management Institute, Inc., The Standard for Program Management–Third 

Edition, 2013; Software Engineering Institute/Carnegie Mellon, Capability Maturity ModeI® 

Integration (CMMI®) for Development, Version 1.3, CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033 (Hanscomb 

AFB, Massachusetts: November 2010) and CMMI® for Acquisition, Version 1.3, 

CMU/SEI-2010-TR-032 (Hanscomb AFB, Massachusetts: November 2010); GAO, 

Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for Assessing and 

Improving Process Maturity, GAO-04-394G (Washington, D.C.: March 2004); GAO, 

Immigration Benefits System: Better Informed Decision Making Needed on Transformation 

Program, GAO-15-415 (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2015); and Center for Legal and Court 

Technologies and the Administrative Conference of the United States, Report to the 

Administrative Conference of the United States: Best Practices for Using Video 

Teleconferencing for Hearings and Related Proceedings (Washington D.C.: 2014).

81GAO-14-704G.
Page 50 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

reviewing proposals and recommendations regarding major investments 

over $1 million and EOIR-wide high risk projects for all information 

systems, data collections, and resources.82 According to OIT officials, the 

board held its first meeting in March 2017 and was briefed on the ECAS 

project. Consistent with best practices for project oversight, EOIR 

documented its policies and procedures for how the EOIR Investment 

Review Board will oversee all major IT investments within EOIR, including 

how it is to monitor program performance, identify and track corrective 

actions, and ensure that desired outcomes are achieved.

However, EOIR OIT officials stated that the EOIR Investment Review 

Board was never intended to oversee ECAS implementation due to the 

detailed nature of this system’s implementation, and EOIR has not yet 

designated an oversight entity or documented a plan for overseeing 

ECAS during critical stages of its development and implementation. 

According to the ECAS Executive Committee charter, the committee will 

dissolve after 1 year when the ECAS roadmap for eventually determining 

the solution is identified. EOIR OIT officials stated that they are 

discussing future oversight for ECAS and may choose to extend the 

Committee’s term, but will not decide how the phased implementation of

ECAS, including oversight, will proceed until they identify a vendor 

because doing so is not yet necessary. As a result, it is unclear how the 

ECAS project will be overseen during the actual deployment of the ECAS 

solution. More specifically, it is not clear how the appropriate oversight 

body will monitor program performance and progress toward expected 

cost, schedule, and benefits; ensure that corrective actions are identified 

and assigned to the appropriate parties at the first sign of cost, schedule, 

or performance slippages; and ensure that corrective actions are tracked 

until the desired outcomes are achieved. Without a designated oversight 

entity and a documented plan for oversight for ECAS through its 

deployment, EOIR is not well-positioned to monitor progress towards 

meeting expected costs and schedule milestones, such as the awarding 

of the ECAS contract and the deployment of the solution. Given EOIR’s 

longstanding efforts to develop a comprehensive e-filing system and a 

delay in meeting a key ECAS milestone, identifying and establishing an 

appropriate entity for exercising oversight for the entirety of the ECAS 

effort upfront is particularly important. Further, documenting and 

 82Pub. L. No. 113-291, div. A, tit. VIII, subtit. D, 128 Stat. at 3438-50 (2014). Among other 

things, this act includes provisions to strengthen the authorities of various agencies’ Chief 

Information Officers, enhance transparency and improve risk management in IT 

investments, and require agencies to inventory their IT assets.
Page 51 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

implementing a plan that is consistent with best practices for exercising

oversight over ECAS until it is fully implemented would better position the 

agency to identify and address any risks and implement ECAS in 

accordance with its cost, schedule, and operational expectations.

EOIR could enhance its VTC program by collecting more reliable data on 

VTC hearings and using the information to assess any effects of VTC use 

on hearing outcomes. EOIR is authorized by statute to hold immigration 

removal proceedings: (1) in person; (2) in the absence of the respondent, 

where agreed to by the parties; (3) through video conference (i.e., VTC), 

in which case consent need not be obtained from either party; or (4) 

through telephone conference, which requires consent of the respondent 

if it is an evidentiary hearing on the merits.83 According to EOIR officials, 

EOIR largely uses VTC for hearings for detained individuals, including 

both master calendar and individual merits hearings.84 According to EOIR 

officials, VTC provides several benefits for the agency, including saving 

time and funds for judge travel to physical court rooms, particularly in 

remote locations; and providing more timely hearings for respondents 

who have cases in which the judge would have to travel to hear their 

case. Additionally, according to EOIR officials, using VTC can minimize 

judges’ lost productivity resulting from a respondent or their 

representative not appearing at a court proceeding because the judge 

can, by virtue of using VTC to remotely hear the case, transition to 

hearing another case in the courtroom or conducting other work. 

According to EOIR officials, EOIR is undertaking and considering 

 83See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(2).

84As previously discussed, master calendar hearings are generally used to schedule 

individual merits hearings and address other administrative matters. Individual merits 

hearings generally address the specific facts and circumstances of the case, including any 

assessments of respondent and witness credibility. 

EOIR Plans to Expand Its 

VTC Use, but Would 

Benefit from Assessing 

Any Effects on Hearing 

Outcomes and Collecting 

Feedback from 

Respondents

EOIR Could Improve Its VTC 

Program by Collecting More 

Reliable Data on VTC 

Hearings and Assessing Any 

Effects of VTC on Hearing 

Outcomes
Page 52 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

measures to ensure that VTC technology is available for use in every 

courtroom, which may result in increased VTC usage. EOIR officials also 

stated that EOIR is considering expanding its VTC program to provide 

additional interpretation services over VTC to the immigration courts.

Best practices for VTC hearings established by the Administrative 

Conference of the United States (ACUS) provide technical, operational, 

and environmental guidance on how agencies may implement or improve 

their use of VTC in administrative hearings and related proceedings. 

These best practices include, among others, ensuring available IT 

support staff and ensuring that the use of VTC is outcome-neutral and 

meets the needs of users.85 In alignment with these best practices, EOIR 

has dedicated technical support personnel for trouble-shooting both 

routine and urgent VTC technical issues.

However, EOIR has not adopted the best practice of ensuring that its 

VTC program is outcome-neutral because it has not evaluated what, if 

any, effects VTC has on case outcomes. Further, Standards for Internal 

Control in the Federal Government state that agencies must have 

relevant, reliable, and timely information relating to internal as well as 

external events to manage the agency’s operations.86 EOIR, though, does 

not collect reliable data on (1) the number of hearings it conducts by VTC, 

(2) respondent appeals related to the use of VTC in their cases, or (3) 

motions filed by respondents requesting in-person instead of VTC 

hearings.87

 85Center for Legal and Court Technologies and the Administrative Conference of the 

United States, Report to the Administrative Conference of the United States: Best 

Practices for Using Video Teleconferencing for Hearings and Related Proceedings 

(Washington D.C.: 2014).

86GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. The update to the Standards, GAO-14-704G, effective beginning 

fiscal year 2016, further state that management should use quality information to achieve 

the entity’s objectives.

87See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(b), 1240.15, related to the BIA’s appellate jurisdiction. If a 

respondent believes that the use of VTC or any other factors adversely affected their 

hearing, the respondent can file an appeal with the BIA arguing that the use of VTC in the 

hearing was unfair or adversely impacted the outcome of their case. Additionally, prior to a 

VTC hearing, respondents can file a motion with the immigration judge requesting to hold 

the hearing in person and not by VTC. Generally, the motion should, according to 

guidance for private bar immigration attorneys, demonstrate the ways in which a merits 

hearing conducted by VTC will jeopardize the respondent’s rights to a full and fair hearing.
Page 53 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

According to EOIR’s most recent analysis of caseload data, EOIR 

conducted approximately 13 percent of all hearings (105,000 of 809,000) 

by VTC in fiscal year 2014. However, the number of VTC hearings EOIR 

conducted could be larger because EOIR does not require the collection 

of this information. In particular, according to EOIR management officials, 

EOIR does not require immigration court staff to indicate the hearing 

medium—in-person, telephonic, or VTC—in its case management system 

because court personnel have numerous other tasks to accomplish 

during hearings. Rather, the data field for the hearing medium is 

automatically populated as “in-person” unless court staff manually select 

an alternative medium on a drop-down menu within the system. Because 

the data for this field are auto-populated and voluntarily entered, EOIR 

does not have reliable data on how many VTC hearings it has conducted.

Congressional committees have also identified a need for EOIR to 

evaluate its VTC program to determine any relationship between VTC 

and hearing outcomes. In particular, the House Committee report 

accompanying the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations 

Act, 2015 requested that EOIR, in order to assess a possible relationship 

between the use of VTC and the impact on managing caseloads and 

outcomes, collect information on the number and type of VTC hearings it 

conducts, analyze the results to determine if there are any effects of VTC 

use in hearings on case outcomes, and submit the results of the analysis 

to the Committee at the time of the fiscal year 2016 budget request.88 In 

the House Committee report accompanying the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2016 the committee noted that this VTC report had 

not yet been submitted, and directed EOIR to submit the report as soon 

as possible.89 As of February 2017, EOIR had not submitted the report, 

but in a response to the House Committee, EOIR stated that it would 

need to consult with outside experts to develop a methodology and cost 

estimate for the study to ensure its validity and that EOIR was receptive 

to further discussing the study with the Committee.

According to EOIR officials, EOIR has not collected information on or 

evaluated the use of VTC in its hearings for several reasons.

 88See H.R. Rep. No. 113-448, at 43 (May 15, 2014) accompanying Pub. L. No. 113-235, 

div. B, 128 Stat. 2130, 2173-2234 (2014).

89H.R. Rep. No. 114-130, at 35 (May 27, 2015) accompanying Pub. L. No. 114-113, div. 

B, 129 Stat. 2242, 2286-2333 (2015).
Page 54 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

• First, officials stated that modifying EOIR’s case management system 

and retraining court staff to record the hearing medium for every case 

would create considerable costs for EOIR and create an extra task for 

already busy court staff. However, as previously described, EOIR’s 

case management system includes a non-mandatory field for 

collecting data on the hearing medium, including the use of VTC, and 

some staff are already entering this data into the non-mandatory field 

to change the auto-population from in-person to VTC, as evidenced 

by EOIR data showing that over 100,000 hearings were held by VTC 

in fiscal year 2014.

• Second, officials stated that a study would likely be difficult, costly, 

time-consuming, and require EOIR to hire outside experts because it 

would need to account for several non-VTC factors, such as criminal 

history, that may affect the outcome of an individual’s hearing.

• Third, any study on the effects of VTC would have to account for 

instances in which some hearings for a respondent were held inperson, while other hearings for the same respondent were held by 

VTC throughout the course of the respondent’s case, according to 

EOIR officials. However, there are alternative methods for conducting 

studies absent the ability to randomly assign individuals to hearings 

with VTC and hearings without non-VTC for comparison purposes for 

evaluation.90 In addition, other administrative agencies that use VTC, 

including the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Board of Veterans’

Appeals (BVA) and the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) Office 

of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR), have analyzed the 

impact of VTC on their hearings.

• Fourth, EOIR officials explained that they do not track the number of 

appeals related to the use of VTC and motions requesting in-person 

hearings because, due to the complexity of appeals and motions, it 

would require additional training for legal assistants and would compel 

EOIR to begin tracking reasons for other appeals and motions as well. 

However, the BIA has screening panels of staff attorneys tasked with 

identifying the legal issues in appeals who could incorporate this 

additional responsibility into their existing duties with respect to 

 90For instance, statistical procedures, such as “propensity score analysis,” can be used to 

statistically model variables that may influence participants’ assigned to a program 

compared with individuals not assigned. These procedures are then applied to the 

analysis of outcome data to reduce the influence of those variables on the results 

attributable to the program. EOIR’s case management system includes data on detention 

status, among other factors. For more on designing evaluations, see GAO, Designing 

Evaluations: 2012 Revision, GAO-12-208G (Washington, D.C.: Jan.31, 2012).
Page 55 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

appeals. Additionally, EOIR does not necessarily have to, by virtue of 

collecting data on motions and appeals related to VTC, collect data on 

all reasons for motions and appeals.

Several immigration court officials, experts, and stakeholders we 

interviewed expressed concern that the use of VTC technology poses 

challenges for holding immigration hearings. Specifically, officials from all 

six of the immigration courts we visited reported challenges related to 

VTC hearings, including difficulties maintaining connectivity, hearing 

respondents, exchanging paper documents, conducting accurate foreign 

language interpretation, and assessing the demeanor and credibility of 

respondents and witnesses. One judge explained that VTC can further 

complicate foreign language interpretation using two interpreters to 

translate an uncommon language. For instance, VTC may be used for a 

first interpreter to translate a respondent’s testimony from an uncommon 

language, such as Quiche, to a more common language, such as 

Spanish, and for a second interpreter to simultaneously translate the first 

interpreter’s Spanish translation into English. Also, one judge explained 

that it can be difficult to exchange documents during VTC because the 

documents must be sent by a fax machine and it is hard to reference 

specific documents over the VTC. Additionally, immigration court officials 

from half of the immigration courts we visited stated that they had 

changed their assessment of a respondent’s credibility that was initially 

made during a VTC hearing after holding a subsequent in-person hearing. 

For example, one immigration judge described making the initial 

assessment to deny the respondent’s asylum application during a VTC 

hearing in which it was difficult to understand the respondent due to the 

poor audio quality of the VTC. However, after holding an in-person 

hearing with the respondent in which the audio and resulting 

interpretation challenges were resolved, the judge clarified the facts of the 

case, and as a result, decided to grant the respondent asylum. Another 

immigration judge reported being unable to identify a respondent’s 

cognitive disability over VTC, but that the disability was clearly evident 

when the respondent appeared in person at a subsequent hearing, which 

affected the judge’s interpretation of the respondent’s credibility.

Additionally, 9 of the 10 experts and stakeholders we contacted also 

expressed concerns with VTC immigration hearings, including the 

potential for VTC to affect hearing outcomes.91 One of the experts and 

 91According to EOIR officials, these expert and stakeholder perspectives do not align with 

the holdings of multiple courts of appeal, which have never found that conducting a VTC 

hearing violates due process. 
Page 56 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

stakeholders we interviewed reported concerns with EOIR increasingly 

using VTC to conduct merits and asylum hearings, which generally 

address substantive case issues and can result in a decision. According 

to this individual, hearings held by VTC instead of in-person can 

exacerbate perceived barriers to pro se respondents—individuals without 

representation—who already have difficulty understanding the complex 

immigration legal system.92 Another one of the experts and stakeholders 

cited a situation in which the respondent’s attorney who was not 

physically co-located with the respondent could not confidentially confer 

with his client over VTC, and the respondent was ordered removed by the 

immigration judge. These experts and stakeholders also cited challenges 

during VTC hearings related to exchanging documents between multiple 

locations and the quality of foreign language interpretation during VTC 

hearings due to poor connectivity and audio quality.

Following our discussion of these issues with EOIR in February 2017, 

EOIR’s Office of Planning, Analysis, and Statistics developed a 

preliminary proposal document describing possible approaches for 

studying VTC effects on case outcomes. However, as of February 2017, 

senior EOIR officials told us that EOIR does not have definitive plans to 

move forward with a study, leaving the extent to which EOIR will assess 

the use of VTC in immigration hearings uncertain. By collecting and 

analyzing data to assess the use of VTC in immigration hearings, EOIR 

could fulfill the directive in the House Committee report accompanying the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, be better positioned to manage 

and improve its VTC program, as well as assess and address, as 

appropriate, concerns expressed by immigration court officials, experts, 

and stakeholders. Specifically, through collecting more complete data on 

the number and type of hearings it conducts by VTC, EOIR would have 

more reliable information for understanding the extent and nature of the 

agency’s VTC use, particularly as it plans to expand its VTC program. 

Further, by collecting data on appeals related to the use of VTC and the 

number of in-person hearing motions filed, EOIR would have additional 

information on how respondents may view the use of VTC for hearings. 

 92According to a 2009 report authored by this expert’s organization—the Chicago 

Appleseed Fund for Justice—VTC can also make detained respondents, who are typically 

alone in a room in a detention center looking at a video screen, uncomfortable or 

confused, which can result in the perception that they are being less than fully candid. 

Further, according to this report, removing the personal contact between the respondent 

and immigration judge makes it harder for respondents to make their cases. See Chicago 

Appleseed Fund for Justice, Assembly Line Injustice: Blueprint to Reform America’s 

Immigration Courts (Chicago: May 2009).
Page 57 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

By using these and other data to assess VTC hearing outcomes and 

implementing any corrective actions resulting from this analysis, EOIR 

could have further assurance that its use of VTC in immigration hearings 

is neutral.

EOIR could further ensure that its VTC program meets user needs by 

soliciting feedback from respondents regarding their satisfaction and 

experiences with VTC hearings. According to EOIR officials responsible 

for implementing the VTC program, EOIR primarily gathers informal 

feedback on its VTC program through meetings between Assistant Chief 

Immigration Judges, immigration judges, and private bar and DHS 

attorneys. Additionally, immigration judges and other court stakeholders 

can take the initiative to provide feedback on the VTC program to the 

court administrator and Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, according to 

EOIR officials. However, EOIR does not, according to EOIR officials, 

systematically collect feedback on VTC immigration hearings from 

respondents.

According to ACUS best practices for VTC use, federal agencies should 

solicit feedback and comments about VTC from those who use it 

regularly. Specifically, ACUS recommends that agencies maintain open 

lines of communication with participants in order to receive feedback 

about the use of VTC for the hearing. Post-hearing surveys or other 

appropriate methods, according to ACUS best practices, should be used 

to collect information about the experience and satisfaction of the 

participants with the VTC hearing.

As previously discussed, immigration court officials from all six of the 

immigration courts we visited cited challenges related to using VTC for 

immigration hearings, which could impact respondents. Specifically, 

several of the immigration court officials we interviewed expressed 

concerns regarding the visual and audio quality of VTC hearings. For 

instance, one immigration judge explained that she discovered 

respondents from one DHS detention center frequently could not see all 

of the courtroom participants, including the immigration judge, on the VTC 

screen in the detention center. A member from the immigration judges’

union explained that this lack of visibility in the courtroom for the 

respondents is a significant concern because, according to this member, 

it could affect the ability of the respondents to present evidence in support 

of their case and respond to evidence presented against them during the 

proceedings. Additionally, one immigration judge reported that she does 

not like to hold VTC hearings because it is sometimes hard to hear and 

fully comprehend what is being said over VTC, which, according to this 

EOIR Could Further Ensure 

that Its VTC Program Meets 

User Needs by Collecting 

Feedback from Respondents 

on Their VTC Hearings
Page 58 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

judge, can make it difficult to assess the respondent’s demeanor and 

credibility. Another immigration judge stated that respondents often 

cannot see everyone in the courtroom or know who is speaking during 

VTC hearings. Further, an additional immigration judge stated that there 

are sometimes poor connections over VTC that make it hard to hear the 

respondent. Additionally, officials from 5 of the 6 immigration courts we 

visited cited challenges related to VTC equipment malfunctions, including 

the need to reschedule hearings, move court-rooms, and a lack of visual 

and audio quality for VTC hearings which could lead to delays in 

respondents receiving a decision in their case.

Seven of the ten experts and stakeholders that we contacted similarly 

reported challenges with the visual and audio quality of VTC hearings that 

could affect respondents and immigration judges. Specifically, one of the 

experts and stakeholders reported that in some VTC hearings cameras 

are not always placed in an effective location. Another one of the experts 

and stakeholders stated that sometimes respondents and private bar 

attorneys cannot hear or see over VTC what is occurring in the courtroom and that foreign language interpretation is also difficult to conduct 

over VTC when respondents cannot hear the translation, due to VTC 

audio quality issues. Three additional experts and stakeholders also 

expressed concerns with immigration judges not being able to see all of 

the hearing participants due to VTC technical issues.

EOIR does not, according to EOIR officials, systematically collect 

feedback on VTC immigration hearings from respondents for several 

reasons:

• The immigration court system is adversarial and respondents may not 

be able to separate their experiences with VTC from their satisfaction 

with the outcomes of their cases;

• Respondents can raise concerns with the medium of their hearing by 

filing an appeal with the BIA; and

• Systematic surveys to collect feedback on its VTC program would 

likely require significant resources.

However, EOIR could collect the respondent feedback after a hearing, but 

not necessarily after the immigration judge has decided the case. 

Specifically, because some cases entail multiple hearings, EOIR could 

collect feedback after a VTC hearing but prior to the conclusion of the 

case and respondents knowing the outcome. Additionally, other 

adjudicatory systems that use VTC have developed methods to collect 
Page 59 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

feedback from respondents. For example, BVA officials stated that they 

previously used a survey card and then an overall veteran satisfaction 

survey to gather feedback from veterans regarding their hearing

experience after the judge decided the case. However, BVA officials 

explained that due to concerns that the case outcome might bias the 

veterans’ response to the survey and that the integrity of the data may be 

compromised by waiting to administer the survey, the BVA changed its 

method and will in 2017 begin using a new survey that it will conduct

within 2 or 3 weeks after the hearing and prior to the BVA’s decision. 

Additionally, instead of solely relying on the appeals process to address 

any respondent concerns with VTC hearings, EOIR could utilize existing 

feedback processes or potentially lower-cost approaches to collecting 

feedback that would not likely require significant resources. For instance, 

EOIR could build on its existing complaint process, which allows 

respondents to submit complaints regarding immigration judges, private 

bar attorneys, and foreign language interpreters through e-mail to 

established EOIR e-mail accounts for receiving each type of complaint.

According to ACUS best practices for using VTC for hearings, in addition 

to soliciting user feedback agencies should also ensure that conditions 

allow participants to see, be seen by, and hear other participants. 

Soliciting feedback from respondents on their satisfaction and 

experiences with VTC hearings, including the visual and audio quality of 

the VTC hearing, could give respondents the opportunity to raise such 

technical and other issues and, in turn, help EOIR identify and address 

them. Further, soliciting feedback from respondents can help EOIR better 

ensure that its VTC program meets all users’ needs, including 

respondents whose cases are heard and decided during VTC hearings.
Page 60 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

EOIR previously established performance monitoring activities and 

measures to assess aspects of the immigration courts, but has eliminated 

several of these performance assessment mechanisms and has not met 

its remaining goals consistently since fiscal year 2010. Further, EOIR no 

longer has goals for most cases it adjudicates, including some cases it 

prioritizes for adjudication. Beginning in 1997, EOIR used the Immigration 

Court Evaluation Program to qualitatively measure the courts’ operational 

performance. This program employed teams of peer evaluators—

immigration judges, court administrators, and legal assistants from other 

courts—to evaluate a court’s operations against established objectives, 

identify challenges the court faced in achieving EOIR’s goals, and 

recommend appropriate corrective measures.93 In 2002, EOIR also 

established 11 quantitative performance goals to help ensure the timely 

completion of cases, as shown figure 10. In particular, immigration judges 

were expected to complete a specific percentage of cases within a 

specified time frame. For example, EOIR established a goal that 80 

percent of detained cases—cases in which the respondent is detained 

throughout the case—were to be completed within 60 days. DOJ uses 

performance results related to two of these goals—case completion time 

for detained cases and Institutional Hearing Program cases—in its Annual 

Performance Report to assess efforts in achieving its strategic objective 

 93GAO-06-771.

Comprehensive 

Performance 

Assessment Could 

Help EOIR Identify 

Effective 

Management 

Approaches to 

Address the Case 

Backlog

EOIR Established Some 

Performance Measures, 

But Has Not Consistently 

Met Them and Does Not 

Have Performance 

Measures for Most Cases
Page 61 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

of adjudicating all immigration cases promptly and impartially in 

accordance with due process.94

However, EOIR officials stated that in fiscal year 2008 EOIR moved from 

conducting qualitative on-site evaluations through the Immigration Court 

Evaluation Program to using quantitative performance measures. Further, 

in fiscal year 2010, EOIR eliminated and condensed several of these 

goals. Specifically, EOIR eliminated four quantitative case completion 

goals, including goals for most non-detained cases, and condensed four 

other goals into two goals, leaving five total performance goals for case 

completion times, as shown in figure 10.

 94The Institutional Hearing Program provides for the adjudication of immigration cases 

involving respondents who are incarcerated in federal, state, and local institutions for 

criminal offenses.
Page 62 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Figure 10: Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (EOIR) Cases with Case 

Completion Goals, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2015

a

Performance reported by Department of Justice in its Annual Performance Report to assess efforts 

in achieving its strategic objective of adjudicating all immigration cases promptly and impartially in 

accordance with due process.

Since fiscal year 2010, EOIR reported that it has not consistently met its 

five remaining goals. Specifically, according to internal quarterly 

performance reports, EOIR has only consistently met, or come close to 

meeting, its goal to complete 85 percent of bond redetermination hearings 

within 21 days, as shown in table 2.
Page 63 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Table 2: Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (EOIR) Case Completion Goals and Quarterly Performance, Fiscal Years 

2010 through 2015

Case type Time goal

Case goal 

(percent of completed cases)

Fiscal year

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Bond Redetermination Hearings 21 Days 85 ● ◕ ● ● ● ◕

Credible Fear Reviewa 7 Days 100 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Detained Casesb 60 Days 85 ● ● ◕ ○ ○ ○

Expedited Asylum Casesc 180 Days 90 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Institutional Hearing Program Prior to release 85 ● ● ● ● ○ ○

Legend: ● = met goal for all four quarters in fiscal year ◕ = met goal for three of four quarters in fiscal year ○ = did not meet goal in any quarter of fiscal year

Source: GAO analysis of Executive Office for Immigration Review Quarterly Performance Reports. | GAO-17-438

a

For credible fear cases, a respondent who an asylum officer determined does not to have a credible 

fear of persecution in his or her home country is to be ordered removed. In that circumstance, the 

individual may seek review of the asylum officer’s negative determination by an immigration judge; 

and this review must be concluded as expeditiously as possible, to the maximum extent practicable 

within 24 hours, but in no case later than 7 days after the date of the adverse determination. (8 U.S.C. 

§ 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(III))

b

For fiscal year 2015, EOIR changed its goal for detained cases to achieve adjudication of 80 percent 

of cases within 60 days, five percent less than in fiscal years 2010 through 2014. However, EOIR 

reported that it did not meet this goal.

c

In the absence of exceptional circumstances, final administrative adjudication of an asylum 

application is to be completed within 180 days after the date an application is filed (not including time 

for administrative appeal). (8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii)).

Further, as a result of changes to its performance activities and 

measures, EOIR does not have performance measures or goals for most 

of the cases it adjudicates. For example, EOIR does not have 

performance goals for cases in which the respondent is not detained 

(non-detained cases).95 In 2012, the DOJ Office of Inspector General 

recommended that EOIR develop immigration court case completion 

goals for non-detained cases.96 EOIR partially concurred with this 

recommendation and began to track non-detained case completion times, 

 95EOIR has a performance goal for expedited asylum cases. Expedited asylum cases are 

cases subject to a 180-day adjudication deadline and respondents in these proceedings 

may be detained or not detained. Therefore, some of these cases may have an 

associated case completion goal; however, according to EOIR performance reports and 

data, all expedited asylum cases constituted a relatively small percentage (about 9 

percent) of EOIR’s completed cases from fiscal years 2010 through 2015.

96Department of Justice Office of Inspector General, Management of Immigration Cases 

and Appeals by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, I-2013-001 (Washington, 

D.C.: October 2012).
Page 64 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

but did not implement case completion goals for non-detained cases.97

EOIR officials explained that the agency did not ultimately implement 

these goals because case completion goals are a statement of agency 

priorities, and EOIR officials stated that counting every case as a priority 

does not allow EOIR to effectively allocate its resources. Non-detained 

cases comprised 83 percent of immigration courts’ total caseload from 

fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2015. Further, non-detained cases 

grew at an average annual rate of 10 percent over that time period and in 

fiscal year 2015 represented 90 percent of EOIR’s total caseload.

Additionally, EOIR has identified certain types of cases as priorities for 

adjudication and issued guidance to courts on how to prioritize these 

cases through their scheduling of hearings, but EOIR has not established 

goals to ensure the timely completion for all of these cases. From 

September 2014 to January 2017, EOIR prioritized the cases of detained 

recent border crossers, unaccompanied children, and families held in 

detention or released on alternatives to detention.98 EOIR had case 

completion goals for detained respondents, but not for the other cases it 

considered a priority—unaccompanied children or families released on 

alternatives to detention.

Our analysis showed that from September 2014 when the guidance was 

issued to September 2015, prioritized cases accounted for 28 percent of 

the NTAs EOIR received as shown in table 3. Prioritized cases without 

case completion goals, families released on alternatives to detention and 

unaccompanied children, accounted for 23 percent of NTAs EOIR 

received during this period.

 97The DOJ Office of Inspector General stated in an August 2013 letter to EOIR that it 

considered EOIR’s action to begin tracking non-detained case completion times as 

responsive to the recommendation to develop case completion goals for non-detained 

cases and stated the recommendation was resolved. 

98Alternatives to Detention is a DHS program that uses case management and electronic 

monitoring to ensure respondents released into the community comply with their release 

conditions—including requirements to appear at immigration court hearings—and comply 

with final orders of removal from the United States.
Page 65 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Table 3: New Priority Immigration Court Cases Since Priority Guidance Was Issued in September 2014 through September 

2015

Priority categories

Notices to Appear 

received from September 

2014 to September 2015

Percent of Notices to Appear 

received from September 2014 

through September 2015

All Priority Cases 62,424 28

Families Released on Alternatives to Detention 18,492 8

Detained Families 4,148 2

Detained Recent Border Crossers 6,358 3

Unaccompanied Children 33,426 15

Non-Priority Cases 158,257 72

Total 220,681 100

Source: GAO analysis of Executive Office for Immigration Review data. | GAO-17-438

In January 2017, EOIR changed the cases it prioritized to (1) all detained 

individuals; (2) unaccompanied children in the care and custody of the 

Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee 

Resettlement without a sponsor identified; and (3) individuals released 

from detention pursuant to a Rodriguez bond hearing.99 EOIR has 

maintained its case completion goals for detained respondents and 

incorporated cases involving unaccompanied children without an 

identified sponsor into the category of detained cases. However, as of 

February 2017, EOIR has not developed a case completion goal for its 

case priority of individuals who have been released from detention 

pursuant to a Rodriguez bond hearing and none of its current five case 

completion goals encapsulate this priority because this category of 

respondents are not detained. Further, EOIR officials stated that the 

agency does not plan to develop a goal for completing these cases.

 99A sponsor is an individual—generally a parent or other relative—or entity, capable of 

providing for the child’s physical and mental well-being, to which the Office of Refugee 

Resettlement releases an unaccompanied child out of federal custody. Unaccompanied 

children without an identified sponsor remain in the long-term care of the Office of 

Refugee Resettlement at the expense of the government. Under Rodriguez v. Robbins, 

804 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. granted sub nom. Jennings v. Rodriguez, 136 S. Ct. 

2489 (2016), individuals within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit who are detained for 6 

months or more, including those who would otherwise be subject to mandatory detention, 

are entitled to an automatic bond hearing before an immigration judge. In addition, 

individuals who are detained for more than 12 months are also entitled to automatic, 

periodic bond hearings at 6-month intervals.
Page 66 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

EOIR officials provided several reasons for changes to its performance 

assessment and measures. According to EOIR officials, EOIR changed 

the Immigration Court Evaluation Program from a qualitative performance 

assessment to a solely quantitative assessment as a result of a DOJ 

hiring freeze in 2011, which reduced the number of available staff for onsite evaluations. EOIR officials stated that in January 2017, the agency 

hired a staff member to start a new program, the Organizational Results 

Unit, intended as a successor to the Immigration Court Evaluation 

Program. According to these officials, EOIR plans to have the new 

program in place before the end of fiscal year 2017. EOIR officials also 

told us that EOIR eliminated and combined the quantitative performance 

measures because the remaining five measures represent the agency’s 

highest priorities. Further, these officials stated that tracking case 

completion goals for non-priority cases, such as non-detained cases, 

would limit the agency’s ability to focus on meeting case completion goals 

for prioritized cases. However, EOIR does not have case completion 

goals for some of the cases it considers priorities, such as individuals who 

have been released from detention pursuant to a Rodriguez bond 

hearing. Additionally 6 of 12 immigration judges we spoke with told us 

that achieving case completion goals was not as important to them as 

ensuring the due process rights of respondents. However, EOIR’s primary 

mission is to adjudicate immigration cases in a careful and timely manner, 

and, according to statements by EOIR’s Director, EOIR works to hear 

priority cases as quickly as possible while protecting due process.100

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that 

management should monitor and assess the quality of performance over 

time.101 Additionally, these standards state that information is needed 

throughout an agency to achieve all its objectives. Moreover, we 

previously identified practices for enhancing agency use of performance 

information, including communicating performance against established 

 100See The Unaccompanied Alien Children Crisis: Does the Administration Have a Plan to 

Stop the Border Surge and Adequately Monitor the Children? Hearing before the Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. (2016); The 2014 Humanitarian Crisis at Our 

Border: A Review of the Government’s Response to Unaccompanied Minors One Year 

Later: Hearing before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs, 114th Cong. (2015).

101GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. The update to the Standards, GAO-14-704G, effective beginning 

fiscal year 2016, further state that information sharing and communication is vital to 

ensure an entity achieves its objectives.
Page 67 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

targets.102 Without establishing performance goals and targets that more 

comprehensively account for case types, including the majority of its 

caseload and 73 percent of completed cases in fiscal year 2015, EOIR 

cannot fully evaluate whether the immigration courts are achieving 

EOIR’s mission which includes the timely adjudication of all cases—both 

detained and non-detained. Comprehensive case completion goals, 

including for example new case completion goals for non-detained 

respondents, and cases it considers a priority, such as individuals who 

have been released from detention pursuant to a Rodriguez bond 

hearing, would help EOIR more effectively monitor its performance. 

Further, such goals would not preclude EOIR from reflecting agency 

priorities by assigning priority cases a shorter case completion goal, a 

larger percentage goal, or both.

EOIR collects information on the extent and reasons why immigration 

judges issue continuances—temporary adjournments of case 

proceedings until a different day or time—but does not systematically 

assess these data to identify and address potential operational 

challenges affecting the immigration courts or areas where immigration 

judges could benefit from additional guidance or training. Immigration 

judges may adjourn a case for a variety of reasons, either on their own 

volition or for good cause shown by the respondent or DHS.103 For 

example, an immigration judge has discretionary authority to grant a 

motion for continuance to allow respondents to obtain legal 

representation or DHS to complete required background investigations 

and security checks.104 EOIR tracks the extent to which immigration 

judges issue continuances and the reason for each continuance within its 

 102For example, see GAO, Managing for Results: Agencies Should More Fully Develop 

Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act, GAO-13-174 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 

19, 2013), and GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing the Use of Performance 

Information for Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 

2005).

1038 C.F.R. § 1240.6.

104See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. See also Aliens and Nationality; Rules of Procedure for 

Proceedings Before Immigration Judges, 52 Fed. Reg. 2931 (Jan. 29, 1987). Immigration 

judges cannot grant applications for relief subject to identity, law enforcement, or security 

investigations or examinations until after DHS has completed, and reported to the 

immigration judge any relevant information from, the appropriate background 

investigations and security checks. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(g).

Assessing Case 

Continuance Data Could 

Help EOIR Ensure 

Efficient Management 

Practices
Page 68 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

case management system. EOIR categorizes reasons for case 

continuances into approximately 70 different categories, including:

• Respondent-related continuances, such as illness of a respondent or 

their witness or attorney;

• DHS-related continuances, such as the need for more time to 

complete a background investigation or security check;

• Immigration judge-related continuances, such as unplanned leave or 

insufficient time to complete a hearing; and

• Operational continuances, such as a lack of a foreign language 

interpreter, or a VTC malfunction.105

In 2013, EOIR issued guidance to assist immigration judges with fair and 

efficient practices related to the issuance of continuances.106 This 

guidance states that while many requests for continuances are for 

legitimate or unforeseen reasons, multiple continuances result in delay in 

the individual case, and when viewed across the entire immigration court 

system, exacerbate already crowded dockets. According to this guidance, 

multiple hearings in a case resulting from the use of continuances, 

especially at the individual calendar hearing, require administrative time 

and resources for the preparation of notices to the parties, often involve 

contract interpreters, and use docket time that could otherwise have been 

used for case resolution.

Our analysis of about 3.7 million continuance records from fiscal years 

2006 through 2015 showed that the use of continuances has grown over 

time and that, on average, cases that experience more continuances take 

longer to complete. Specifically, our analysis of EOIR’s continuance data 

found that the use of all types of continuances increased by 23 percent 

from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2015. According to our analysis, 

immigration judge-related continuances increased by 54 percent from 

about 47,000 continuances issued in fiscal year 2006 to approximately 

72,000 continuances issued in fiscal year 2015. Operational continuances 

 105A full list of continuance reasons and the frequency with which they were used from 

fiscal years 2006 through 2015 is included in app. III.

106Executive Office for Immigration Review, Continuances and Administrative Closure, 

OPPM 13-01, (Mar. 7, 2013). This guidance states that if an immigration judge grants 

more than two adjournments in a case to (1) allow a respondent to obtain legal 

representation or (2) allow DHS time to complete background investigations and security 

checks, the immigration judge will record the circumstances that resulted in the granting of 

those adjournments.
Page 69 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

increased by 33 percent from about 35,000 continuances issued in fiscal 

year 2006 to about 47,000 continuances issued in fiscal year 2015. 

Respondent-related continuances increased by 18 percent from about 

214,000 continuances issued in fiscal year 2006 to about 252,000 

continuances issued in fiscal year 2015. DHS-related continuances 

declined by 2 percent from about 25,000 continuances issued in fiscal 

year 2006 to about 24,000 continuances issued in fiscal year 2015.

We also found that the percentage of completed cases which had multiple 

continuances increased from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2015 and that, 

on average, cases with multiples continuances took longer to complete 

than cases with no or fewer continuances. Specifically, 9 percent of cases 

completed in fiscal year 2006 experienced four or more continuances 

compared to 20 percent of cases completed in fiscal year 2015. 

Additionally, cases that were completed in fiscal year 2015 and had no 

continuances took an average of 175 days to complete. In contrast, cases 

with four or more continuances took an average of 929 days to complete 

in fiscal year 2015.107 EOIR officials attributed this trend to successful 

legal challenges brought by respondents where circuit courts have 

remanded to the BIA cases in which the BIA upheld immigration judge 

decisions to deny a request or motion for a continuance.108

DHS attorneys from four out of six offices we visited told us that granting 

multiple continuances in cases resulted in inefficiencies and wasted 

resources such as DHS attorneys having to continually prepare for 

hearings that continued multiple times. Additionally, some of these 

attorneys stated that the increased use of continuances across the 

immigration courts contributed to—or were the primary cause of—the 

courts’ case backlog. Further, DHS attorneys from two offices stated that 

they had expressed their concerns about the increased use of 

continuances—some of which they characterized as excessive or 

unwarranted—to EOIR management but had not seen a shift in the extent 

to which judges grant continuances. For example, one of these DHS 

attorneys cited cases involving respondents convicted of serious crimes, 

such as gang rape, who have received multiple continuances in their 

cases. As a result, according to this DHS attorney, the cases have 

 107App. III provides tables of the frequency distribution of completed immigration court 

cases by number of continuances and the average days to completion by number of 

continuances for fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2015.

108See e.g., Simon v. Holder, 654 F.3d 440 (3rd Cir. 2011); Lagua v. Holder, 438 

Fed.Appx. 598 (9th Cir. 2011).
Page 70 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

remained open and pending in immigration court for several years and in 

some of these cases the respondents committed additional crimes while 

their cases were pending. EOIR’s 2013 guidance directs immigration 

judges to document the circumstances for providing two types of 

continuances, but EOIR does not track the use of these or any other type 

of continuance to identify potential management challenges. EOIR 

officials stated that it does not track the frequency or reasons for 

continuances because immigration judges have broad discretion over 

whether to grant continuances. Further, EOIR officials also stated that 

systematically analyzing the use continuances is not necessary because 

they have other mechanisms, such as tracking complaints from parties 

involved in a case, that would alert EOIR to the same issues that 

analyzing continuances would.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that 

accurate and timely recording of events provide relevance and value to 

management when controlling operations and making decisions.109

Further, we have previously found that best practices in managing for 

results include using performance information to identify effective 

approaches, as well as identify problems and take corrective action.110

Systematically analyzing the use of continuances, particularly operational 

continuances, could provide EOIR officials with valuable information 

about potential challenges the immigration courts may be experiencing or 

areas that may merit additional guidance and training for immigration 

judges. EOIR officials can continue to use complaints from parties to track 

issues on a case-by-case basis, but also analyzing the use of 

continuances on a systematic basis would give EOIR greater insight into 

more widespread issues. For example, EOIR could analyze the extent to 

which, if any, operational issues with translators, VTC malfunctions, or 

other issues that could be affecting the immigration courts. In addition, 

EOIR could use this information to determine whether additional guidance 

or training in the use of continuance codes would be helpful for judges. 

For example, our analysis of continuance records showed that judges 

continued 2,882 hearings in fiscal year 2015 due to the federal 

government shutdown that occurred and ended in October of fiscal year 

2014. Further, using this information to potentially address operational 

 109GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. The update to the Standards, GAO-14-704G, effective beginning 

fiscal year 2016 further states that management should use relevant data to achieve the 

agency’s objectives and to monitor the quality of performance over time. 

110GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency use of Performance Information for 

Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005).
Page 71 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

challenges could help EOIR meet its goals for completing cases in a 

timely manner, which it did not consistently do from fiscal year 2010 

through fiscal year 2015 as previously discussed.

EOIR could improve the reliability of its case management data and 

reports on case completion times by ensuring that court staff accurately 

record NTAs in a timely manner. As discussed earlier in this report, EOIR 

has used case completion times to assess its performance since at least 

2002 and reports this information publically in DOJ’s Annual Performance 

Report. EOIR does not have guidance or data integrity efforts to ensure 

the timely and accurate recording of NTAs in its case management 

system. Federal regulations and EOIR’s docketing manual state that 

cases before the immigration court begin on the date that DHS files an 

NTA with the court, known as the receipt date.111 EOIR maintains a policy 

that court staff enter NTAs received from DHS into its case management 

system upon receipt. According to guidance EOIR issued in 1987, the 

timely and accurate entry of NTAs into the case management system is 

vital to ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the system, as well as 

the accuracy of data in statistical reports. The guidance requires court 

staff to update the court’s caseload in its case management system on a 

monthly basis and verify the accuracy of this information on a quarterly 

basis. However, EOIR officials told us that this guidance is outdated 

because it is based on a case management system EOIR stopped using 

in 2007. Further, EOIR has not issued new guidance to ensure the timely 

and accurate recording of NTAs into its current case management 

system.

We found that at least 16 percent of cases entered into EOIR’s case 

management system from fiscal year 2006 through 2015 had NTA receipt 

dates that may be unreliable. Specifically, our analysis showed that 16 

percent of cases had NTA receipt dates that occurred after the input 

date—the date automatically generated when court staff enter the 

respondent’s NTA into the case management system. An input date 

cannot occur prior to the receipt date because the receipt date reflects the 

 111Federal regulations state that every formal removal proceeding begins with the filing of 

an NTA with the immigration court, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 239.1,1239.1(a).

Timely and Accurate 

Recording of NTAs Could 

Help EOIR Better Track 

and Report Case 

Completion Times
Page 72 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

date the NTA was first received by the court.112 Both EOIR officials and 

DHS attorneys identified the timely recording of NTAs as a challenge for 

immigration courts. EOIR officials told us that the agency has used 

temporary duty assignments and added resources to assist courts that 

are the least timely in recording NTAs. Nonetheless, EOIR officials told us 

that they recognize that court personnel often enter NTAs for priority 

cases before non-priority cases due to limited resources. For example, 

three of the five EOIR court administrators we interviewed stated that they 

do not always have sufficient personnel to enter NTAs in a timely manner 

or that they have a backlog of NTAs waiting to be recorded at their courts. 

Additionally, EOIR officials reported that the receipt date is more 

susceptible to human error since it is manually inputted rather than 

automatically generated by the case management system.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government require that 

management establish internal controls and develop policies and 

procedures to ensure their implementation.113 These standards also call 

for agencies to communicate quality information with external parties, 

such as other government entities, to make informed decisions and 

evaluate the entity’s performance in achieving key objectives. EOIR 

officials stated that its guidance on docketing priority cases, as well as the 

agency’s case completion goals, provide timeframes for the entering of 

NTAs. Specifically, EOIR officials stated that its guidance that detained 

cases must be scheduled on the earliest possible date and its expedited 

timeframe goals for completing detained cases, credible fear reviews, and 

asylum cases ensures that staff are entering NTAs in a timely manner. 

However, this guidance does not instruct staff to ensure the reliability of 

NTA data and further, as previously described, cases with case 

completion goals account for a minority of cases EOIR adjudicates. Also 

as discussed earlier in this report, EOIR has not met its goals for these 

three case types since fiscal year 2012, suggesting that the existence of 

these goals alone does not ensure the timely completion, including NTA 

entry, for the minority of cases that do have completion goals. Updating 

 112While logically the input date must fall on or after the receipt date, this does not

guarantee that the remaining 84 percent of NTAs in which the input date fell on or after the 

receipt date were accurately entered. Rather, we were unable to employ a similar logic 

test on their accuracy. 

113GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. The update to the Standards, GAO-14-704G, effective beginning 

fiscal year 2016 further states that management implement control activities through 

documented policies and procedures to ensure the objectives of the agency will be 

achieved.
Page 73 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

policies and procedures to remind staff about the importance of, and 

guide them in, timely and accurate recording of all NTAs would provide 

EOIR greater assurance that its case management data are accurate—

including the size of its case backlog. Further, improving the reliability of 

these data would allow EOIR to provide more accurate information in 

DOJ’s Annual Performance Report, which would give external 

stakeholders, including Congress and the public, a more accurate 

understanding of case completion times.

Some immigration court experts and stakeholders have recommended 

restructuring EOIR’s administrative review and appeals functions within 

the immigration court system—immigration courts and BIA—and OCAHO, 

with the goal of seeking to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the 

system or, among other things, to increase the perceived independence 

of the system and professionalism and credibility of the workforce. To 

enhance these areas, these experts and stakeholders, such as 

individuals affiliated with professional legal organizations and former 

EOIR immigration judges, have proposed changing the immigration court 

system’s structure, location among the three branches of government, 

and aspects of its operations. In order to identify restructuring scenarios 

that experts and stakeholders have proposed, we reviewed publications 

and interviewed individuals affiliated with eight entities, as well as two 

former immigration judges selected based on their expertise in 

immigration court issues. See appendix I for more information on the ten 

expert and stakeholder entities and individuals we selected. We found 

that these experts and stakeholders generally supported one of the 

Experts and 

Stakeholders Have 

Proposed 

Restructuring EOIR’s 

Immigration Court 

System

Experts and Stakeholders 

Have Proposed 

Establishing a Court 

System Independent of 

the Executive Branch, an 

Administrative Agency, or 

a Hybrid System
Page 74 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

following scenarios for restructuring the immigration court system, all of 

which would require a statutory change to implement:114

• a court system independent (i.e., outside) of the executive branch to 

replace EOIR’s immigration court system (immigration courts and the 

BIA), including both trial and appellate tribunals;115

• a new, independent administrative agency within the executive branch 

to carry out EOIR’s quasi-judicial functions with both trial-level 

immigration judges and an appellate level review board;116 or

• a hybrid approach, placing trial-level immigration judges in an 

independent administrative agency within the executive branch, and 

an appellate-level tribunal outside of the executive branch.117

Six of the 10 experts and stakeholders we interviewed also discussed a 

range of other court systems and administrative agencies within the U.S. 

 114These scenarios generally focus on restructuring EOIR’s immigration courts and the 

BIA; however, in seeking experts’ and stakeholders’ perspectives on restructuring the 

immigration court system, we also inquired about potential placement options for OCAHO, 

as discussed further below.

115One of the experts and stakeholders we contacted proposed a similar scenario in which 

a consolidated immigration court system would be responsible for all immigration-related 

review and appeals functions across the federal government, including adjudicative 

functions for which other agencies, such as DHS’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services and the Department of State are currently responsible. Another one of the 

experts and stakeholders proposed a study in 2014 to examine the feasibility of such a 

consolidation of all immigration-related adjudications, including those currently carried out 

by DOJ, DHS, Department of State, and Department of Labor, in a restructured 

immigration court independent of the executive branch. The scenarios we considered 

experts and stakeholders to support reflect those they identified to us during our review 

and not any different positions they may have previously held. In this report, we also use 

the term “independent court system” in reference to a court that is structurally independent 

or outside of the executive branch. 

116The term “quasi-judicial” generally characterizes the adjudicatory function(s) of an 

administrative agency, such as EOIR, involving the exercise of discretion, judicial in its 

nature, in connection with the resolution of matters presided over by its officers or 

employees through the consideration of evidence and application of law to fact(s) on a 

case-by-case basis, thus exercising independent judgment and discretion consistent with 

relevant legal authorities. Throughout this report we generally use the term “administrative 

agency” in reference to one which carries out such adjudicatory functions.

117Our literature review identified a fourth scenario that was not raised by the experts and 

stakeholders we interviewed in which trial level adjudicators would be placed in an 

independent administrative agency and the appellate level tribunal in an Article III 

immigration court. This fourth scenario is largely similar to the hybrid approach, but the 

Article III immigration court would replace the BIA and U.S. Courts of Appeals review with 

one appellate review versus solely replacing the BIA’s administrative review.
Page 75 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

government that could serve as examples of these potential court 

structures, including, but not limited to, the:

• U.S. Bankruptcy Courts, which are units of the U.S. District Courts 

made up of bankruptcy judges who are judicial officers appointed to 

hear bankruptcy cases;118

• Social Security Administration’s (SSA) Office of Disability Adjudication 

and Review (ODAR), which is the component responsible for 

overseeing SSA’s administrative hearings and appeals process; 119

and

• Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) and Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims (CAVC), a hybrid system consisting of an administrative 

agency within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and an 

appellate court outside of the executive branch.120

There are various characteristics related to the structure, location among 

the three branches of government, and operations of the current court 

systems, as described in table 6, that are not inherent to the proposed 

structural scenarios. However, these characteristics are relevant to 

consider in deciding whether and how to restructure the immigration 

courts and the BIA. For instance, the role of the courts and the types of 

cases they adjudicate, their caseloads, and the processes for appointing 

judges are characteristics that vary widely across court systems. 

Specifically, in regard to appointment processes, bankruptcy court judges 

are appointed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the 

district is located after considering recommendations of the circuit court’s 

judicial council.121 In contrast, the Office of Personnel Management 

manages and oversees the hiring process for SSA judges, known as 

administrative law judges, and all other administrative law judges federal 

 118See 28 U.S.C. § 151.

119For additional information on the SSA’s administrative law judges, see GAO, ResultsOriented Cultures: Office of Personnel Management Should Review Administrative Law 

Judge Program to Improve Hiring and Performance Management, GAO-10-14, 

(Washington, D.C.: Jan.15, 2010). 

120The Board of Veterans’ Appeals is established under 38 U.S.C. § 7101; and, pursuant 

to 38 U.S.C. § 7251, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is established under Article 

I of the U.S. Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8. For additional information on the 

BVA, see GAO, VA Disability Benefits: Additional Planning Would Enhance Efforts to 

Improve the Timeliness of Appeals Decisions, GAO-17-234, (Washington D.C.: Mar. 23, 

2017). 

121See 28 U.S.C. § 152.
Page 76 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

government-wide. SSA hires its judges from the Office of Personnel 

Management’s register, which is comprised of candidates that have 

satisfied certain qualification requirements and been rated based on an 

Office of Personnel Management-administered administrative law judge 

examination.122 Meanwhile, the President appoints CAVC judges and the 

BVA Chairman with the advice and consent of the Senate and the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs appoints the other members of the BVA, 

known as veterans law judges, from a list of recommendations of the 

Chairman, which are approved by the President.123 For additional 

information on the characteristics of these court systems, see appendix 

IV.

Table 4: Characteristics of the Current Immigration Courts and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and Selected Systems 

Similar to Scenarios Supported by Experts and Stakeholders 

Scenario

Court system 

independent of the 

executive branch Administrative agency

Hybrid of independent 

court system and 

administrative agency

Immigration courts 

and the BIA

Selected court and 

adjudicatory systems 

exemplifying the 

proposed scenariosa

U.S. Bankruptcy Courts Social Security 

Administration’s (SSA) 

Office of Disability 

Adjudication and Review 

(ODAR)

Board of Veterans’ Appeals 

(BVA) and Court of Appeals 

for Veterans Claims (CAVC)

Not applicable

Role Interpret, hold hearings, and 

apply a broad range of state 

and federal law from 

contract and property to 

environmental, labor, and 

tax law in concert with the 

provisions of the Bankruptcy 

Code.

Hold hearings, issue 

decisions, and review 

appeals related to the 

benefit programs that 

SSA administers.

BVA: Conduct hearings and 

decide appeals related to 

benefits for veterans, their 

dependents, or their 

survivors.

Under delegated 

authority from the 

Attorney General, 

conduct immigration 

court proceedings, 

appellate reviews, and 

administrative hearings.

Number of actual 

trial-level judges

Approximately 349 

bankruptcy judgeships as 

of August 2016.

Approximately 1,663 

judges as of February 

2017.

BVA: Approximately 95 

judges as of February 2017.

Approximately 289 

judges as of January 

2017.

Annual case 

completions

2,608 cases closed per 

judge in fiscal year 2016. 

423 decisions per judge in 

fiscal year 2016.

BVA: 662 decisions per 

judge in fiscal year 2016. 

584 case completions 

per judge in fiscal year 

2015.

 122See 5 U.S.C. § 3105; 5 C.F.R. § 930.204.

123See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7101, 7101A, 7253.
Page 77 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Scenario

Court system 

independent of the 

executive branch Administrative agency

Hybrid of independent 

court system and 

administrative agency

Immigration courts 

and the BIA

Judge appointment 

process

Appointed by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Circuit in 

which the district is located 

after considering 

recommendations of the 

circuit court’s judicial 

council.

SSA may appoint an 

individual to serve as an 

Administrative Law Judge 

(ALJ) only with prior 

approval of the Office of 

Personnel Management 

(OPM) except if the 

selection is from OPM’s 

list of eligible persons, 

and subject to certain 

qualification requirements 

including passing an 

OPM-administered ALJ 

exam.

BVA: President nominates 

and the Senate confirms the 

BVA Chairman. The 

Secretary of VA appoints 

other members of the BVA 

from a list of 

recommendations of the 

BVA Chairman, which are 

approved by the President.

Executive Office for 

Immigration Review 

(EOIR) reviews 

applicants and 

recommends 

candidates to the 

Department of Justice’s 

(DOJ Office of the 

Deputy Attorney 

General, where a panel 

reviews the applicants 

and selects candidates 

for appointment by the 

Attorney General. 

Judge removal 

process

May only be removed for 

incompetence, misconduct, 

neglect of duty, or physical 

or mental disability by the 

judicial council of the circuit 

in which they are appointed. 

May only be removed for 

good cause established 

and determined by the 

Merit Systems Protection 

Board on the record and 

after opportunity for a 

hearing before the Board.

BVA: Chairman may only be 

removed by the President, 

after notice and opportunity 

for hearing, for misconduct, 

inefficiency, neglect of duty, 

or engaging in the practice 

of law or for physical or 

mental disability which 

prevents proper execution 

of Chairman’s duties. BVA 

members may be removed 

by the Secretary of 

Veterans’ Affairs, based 

upon the Chairman’s 

recommendation, if the 

Secretary determines that a 

member should be 

noncertified due to 

inadequate job performance 

or for any other reason as 

determined by the 

Secretary.

May be removed by the 

Attorney General for 

cause. 

Length of judges’

terms

14-year term. Indefinite term. BVA: BVA Chairman has a 

6-year term, and may be 

appointed to more than one 

term. Veterans’ law judges 

have indefinite terms. 

Indefinite term.
Page 78 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Scenario

Court system 

independent of the 

executive branch Administrative agency

Hybrid of independent 

court system and 

administrative agency

Immigration courts 

and the BIA

Appellate and 

judicial review

A bankruptcy judge ruling 

may be initially appealed to 

a federal district court, or, 

where established by the 

relevant court of appeals, a 

bankruptcy appellate panel 

consisting of three 

bankruptcy judges. In either 

case, subsequent appeal 

lies with the courts of 

appeals.

ODAR’s Appeals Council, 

as SSA’s last level of 

administrative review, 

may grant, deny, or 

dismiss a request for 

review of a Social 

Security claim and issue 

SSA’s final action for 

claims. Subsequent 

appeal lies with the 

federal district courts. 

BVA and CAVC: CAVC is 

the appellate body for BVA 

decisions appealed by 

claimants and CAVC 

decisions can be appealed 

to the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit.

The BIA hears all 

appeals of immigration 

judge decisions and 

certain Department of 

Homeland Security

decisions. The BIA’s 

decisions can be 

reviewed by the 

Attorney General. An 

individual may appeal a 

final order of removal to 

the appropriate U.S. 

Court of Appeals.

Source: GAO analysis of expert, stakeholder, and federal agency information. | GAO-17-438

a

The U.S. Tax Court is an additional example of an independent court outside of the executive 

branch. See 26 U.S.C. § 7441. The National Labor Relations Board and the Occupational Safety and 

Health Review Commission are also examples of administrative agencies with quasi-judicial 

functions.

The potential effects of restructuring on immigration court system costs 

could also be examined when considering restructuring scenarios. Under 

the current system, EOIR’s largest expense is its personnel and 

compensation, which constituted approximately 53 percent of its fiscal 

year 2015 expenditures and averaged approximately $181 million 

annually from fiscal years 2012 through 2015. Accordingly, this cost 

category could be significantly affected by changes in personnel and 

compensation costs resulting from a restructuring of the immigration court 

system. Therefore, it is important to consider how, if at all, immigration 

judge compensation may potentially change under a restructuring, 

particularly if the job series and classification of immigration judges were 

adjusted under a new structure. For instance, according to data on judge 

pay rates, in 2014 bankruptcy judges’ compensation—approximately 

$183,000—was higher than the compensation of the most senior 

immigration judges at approximately $167,000.

The costs associated with how a restructuring is specifically carried out 

are another relevant factor to consider. For instance, a restructuring of the 

immigration court system would likely result in different facility and IT 

costs depending on whether the restructured system preserved existing 

facilities or occupied new ones, and whether it adopted new IT systems or 

used existing ones. One of the experts and stakeholders we interviewed 

also stated that it would be important to focus on the immigration courts’

support functions and staff under a restructuring since the immigration 
Page 79 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

courts support staff would be critical in managing the transition to a newly 

restructured court with potentially new facilities and administrative 

practices.

The placement of OCAHO within a restructured immigration court system 

could also be examined when considering restructuring scenarios. In 

seeking experts’ and stakeholders’ perspectives, we solicited their views 

on placement options for OCAHO. The experts and stakeholders we 

interviewed recommended a range of potential locations for OCAHO, with 

some suggesting the office be independent of, and others suggesting that 

it be included within, a restructured system. For example, experts and 

stakeholders that suggested OCAHO be independent of a restructured 

immigration court system recommended that it be instead placed within 

DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, the Department of Labor, or DHS. Two of the 

experts and stakeholders explained that since OCAHO provides a very 

different function—adjudication of immigration-related employment and 

document fraud cases—from that of the immigration courts and the BIA 

that it does not need to be placed within the same organization as the 

courts and the BIA. Similarly, another one of the experts and stakeholders 

stated that OCAHO’s mission is more compatible with that of DHS and 

the Department of Labor. In contrast, one of the experts and stakeholders 

recommended that OCAHO be merged with a restructured immigration 

court system and that OCAHO’s administrative law judges become 

immigration judges who, in addition to hearing immigration-related 

employment and document fraud cases, also adjudicate removal and 

other proceedings that presently fall within the jurisdiction of immigration 

judges. This individual offered several advantages to merging OCAHO 

functions with the immigration court system. For example, according to 

this individual, under this proposal EOIR could potentially reduce travelrelated costs for OCAHO judges who as immigration court judges would 
Page 80 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

no longer be centrally located and would instead be assigned to 

immigration courts nationwide.124

Six of the ten experts and stakeholders we interviewed, including 

individuals affiliated with professional legal organizations, academia, and 

the private immigration bar, supported restructuring the immigration court 

system into a court independent of the executive branch. Two of the 

experts and stakeholders we contacted supported a new independent 

administrative agency within the executive branch. One of the experts 

and stakeholders supported the hybrid scenario, placing trial-level 

immigration judges in an independent, administrative agency within the 

executive branch, and an appellate-level tribunal outside of the executive 

branch.125 As summarized in table 7 and further described below, experts 

and stakeholders offered several reasons for each of the proposed 

scenarios, such as potentially increasing the perceived independence of 

the immigration court system; as well as provided reasons against 

restructuring options, such as potentially complicating the appointment of 

immigration judges. We are not taking a position on any of these 

restructuring proposals, or on any of the reasons offered for or against 

them. We present the information we obtained from the experts and 

stakeholders to inform policymakers about proposals that have been put 

forth regarding restructuring the immigration court system.

 124According to EOIR officials, EOIR, including OCAHO, was intentionally separated from 

DHS to make it more independent from the parties, such as DHS attorneys, appearing 

before it. Specifically, EOIR officials explained that DHS appears as a complainant in two 

categories of OCAHO cases. This rationale, according to EOIR officials, also applies to 

the expert and stakeholder recommendation that OCAHO be placed in DOJ’s Civil Rights 

Division, since the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division can 

also be a complainant in another type of OCAHO case. Regarding the expert and 

stakeholder recommendation that OCAHO merge its functions with the immigration court, 

OCAHO’s cases, according to EOIR officials, require very little travel due to the 

infrequency of full evidentiary hearings by OCAHO. EOIR officials also stated that 

because there is currently only one OCAHO administrative law judge, moving this judge to 

an immigration court in the field would not save costs associated with this judge traveling 

to other locations to conduct hearings.

125Two of the ten experts and stakeholders we contacted stated that they support more 

than one of the three proposed scenarios; therefore, the results are not mutually 

exclusive.

Restructuring Benefits 

Cited Include Enhancing 

Perceptions of 

Independence, but 

Concerns Exist Regarding 

Whether Restructuring 

Could Resolve Existing 

Management Challenges
Page 81 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Table 5: Number of Experts and Stakeholders Citing Reasons for and Against Each Proposed Immigration Court 

Restructuring Scenario

Reasons for and against 

each scenario as cited by 

experts and stakeholders

Scenario: 

court system 

independent of the 

executive branch

Scenario: 

administrative 

agency

Scenario: hybrid of 

court outside of the 

executive branch and an 

administrative agency

Reasons for

May increase the perceived independence of 

the immigration court

6 1 1

May give immigration judges more judicial 

autonomy over their courtrooms or dockets

4 - -

May improve workforce professionalism or 

credibility

4 1 -

May enhance organizational capacity or 

accountability

2 1 -

Reasons against

May not resolve existing management 

challenges or case backlog

2 1 -

May complicate the appointment of 

immigration judges

2 - -

May result in administrative challenges 2 2 1

May impede the immigration court system’s 

ability to procure resources

3 1 1

Trial level may become more disconnected 

from the appellate level

- - 1

Source: GAO analysis of expert and stakeholder testimony and documentation. | GAO-17-438

Note: The reasons for and against each of the scenarios represent our synthesis of expert and 

stakeholder perspectives on the advantages and disadvantages of the scenarios.

The experts and stakeholders we interviewed cited several reasons for 

the proposed restructuring scenarios, as described in table 7 and below.

• Independence: Six of the ten experts and stakeholders we contacted 

stated that establishing a court system independent (i.e., outside) of 

the executive branch could increase the perceived independence of 

the system. For example, one of the experts and stakeholders 

explained that the public’s perception of the immigration court 

system’s independence might improve with a restructuring that 

removes the quasi-judicial functions of the immigration courts and the 

BIA from DOJ because DOJ is also responsible for representing the 

government in appeals to the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals by 

individuals seeking review of final orders of removal. This same expert 

and stakeholder noted that removing the immigration court system 

from the executive branch may help to alleviate this perception that 
Page 82 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

the immigration courts are not independent tribunals in which the 

respondents and DHS attorneys are equal parties before the court. 

Another one of the experts and stakeholders explained that under the 

existing immigration court system, respondents may perceive, due to 

the number of immigration judges who are former DHS attorneys and 

the co-location of some immigration courts with ICE’s OPLA offices, 

that immigration judges and DHS attorneys are working together. Two 

of the ten experts and stakeholders we interviewed also proposed that 

an immigration court system independent of the executive branch 

would be less susceptible to political pressures within the executive 

branch. Experts and stakeholders cited similar independence-related 

reasons for supporting the administrative agency and hybrid 

scenarios.

• Judicial autonomy: Four of the ten experts and stakeholders we 

interviewed stated that a court system independent of the executive 

branch might give immigration judges and BIA members more judicial 

autonomy over their courtrooms and dockets. For example, one of the 

experts and stakeholders stated that immigration judges in an 

independent court system would be able to file complaints against 

private bar attorneys directly with the state bar authority instead of 

filing the complaint with DOJ first, as presently required for 

immigration judges acting in their official capacity.126 EOIR officials 

explained that while immigration judges cannot directly file a 

complaint with the state bar authority, EOIR’s Disciplinary Counsel, 

which is charged with investigating these complaints, can file a 

complaint with the state bar on behalf of the immigration judge.

• Workforce professionalism or credibility: Four of the ten experts 

and stakeholders we contacted stated reasons why a court system 

independent of the executive branch might also improve the 

professionalism or credibility of the immigration court system’s 

workforce. For example, one of the experts and stakeholders 

explained that placing judges in an independent immigration court 

system could elevate their stature in the eyes of stakeholders, and by 

extension, enhance the perceived credibility of their decisions. 

Additionally, one of the experts and stakeholders explained that if the 

judge career path was improved under a restructuring such that 

immigration judges were able to advance to more prestigious 

judgeships, this could assist in attracting candidates to the 

immigration bench. Regarding the hybrid scenario, one of the experts 

 1268 C.F.R. § 1003.104(a)(1).
Page 83 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

and stakeholders noted that this proposal may attract a more diverse 

and balanced pool of candidates for immigration judge positions.

• Organizational capacity or accountability: Two of the ten experts 

and stakeholders who supported a court system independent of the 

executive branch cited enhanced organizational capacity or 

accountability as a reason for adopting this scenario. One of the 

experts and stakeholders explained that this type of restructuring may 

allow the immigration court system to improve its organizational 

capacity by changing the way it staffs its managerial and supervisory 

positions. For example, this expert and stakeholder explained that 

instead of placing immigration judges in managerial positions, EOIR 

could, as an independent court system, more easily attract and fill 

managerial positions with individuals who have experience in court 

management and public administration. Similarly, this same expert 

and stakeholder also noted that if the restructured immigration court 

system was placed within the purview of the Administrative Office of 

the U.S. Courts, which provides a wide range of support services to 

the federal judiciary (including administrative, technological and legal 

services), it could use its expertise in court management to assist with 

managing the system.127

In terms of enhancing organizational accountability, this expert and 

stakeholder explained that an independent court system could also 

increase the transparency of the performance evaluation system for 

immigration judges by incorporating feedback from court stakeholders, 

such as DHS and private bar attorneys, on the judges’ performance. 

Similarly, EOIR might be better-positioned under an independent court 

system, according to this expert and stakeholder, to increase the 

transparency of the process for making complaints against immigration 

judges. Specifically, the complaint process for other federal judges, 

according to this individual, is more transparent and the judges are given 

an opportunity to address the complaint and appeal any decisions that 

resulted from the complaint. In addition, according to this same expert 

and stakeholder, a court outside of the executive branch would allow for 

 127In November 2016, the Judicial Conference of the United States informed GAO of its 

long-standing position that if Congress determines there is a need to create an Article I 

Immigration Court, such court be established in the executive branch; and stated that it 

opposes placement of an Article I Immigration Court in the federal judiciary or the 

administration of an Article I immigration court by the federal judiciary. The Judicial 

Conference noted that it does not take a position on whether or not Congress should 

create such a court; rather, its comments relate to the placement of the court, if it were to 

be established.
Page 84 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

more flexibility to address physical space and hiring issues without the 

involvement of another executive agency or department. One of the 

experts and stakeholders who supported the independent administrative 

agency scenario and explained that this proposal might increase EOIR’s 

administrative efficiency by allowing for the appointment of one full-time, 

high-level person responsible for administering the immigration courts, as 

well as attracting highly-qualified managerial talent.

The experts and stakeholders we interviewed also cited several reasons 

against the proposed restructuring scenarios, as described in table 7 and 

below.

• Resolution of existing management challenges or case backlog: 

Two of the ten experts and stakeholders we contacted stated that a 

court system independent of the executive branch may not address 

the immigration courts’ management challenges, such as the case 

backlog. For example, one of the experts and stakeholders stated that 

the immigration court system would likely have a large caseload 

regardless of how it is structured. Another one of the experts and 

stakeholders explained that issues related to how EOIR supports 

respondents without legal representation and—in this individual’s 

opinion—the poor quality of foreign language interpretation in some 

cases could persist even with a restructuring of the system.128 One of 

the experts and stakeholders stated that restructuring the immigration 

court system into an independent administrative agency would not 

address EOIR’s systemic issues, such as its case backlog.

• Appointment of immigration judges: Two of the ten experts and 

stakeholders we interviewed noted that requiring the presidential 

nomination and senate confirmation of immigration judges under an 

independent court system could further complicate and delay the 

hiring of new judges by making the appointment of additional judges 

more dependent on external parties.129

• Administrative challenges: Two of the ten experts and stakeholders 

we interviewed stated that it may be difficult to establish and 

administer a court system independent of the executive branch. 

Specifically, these experts and stakeholders expressed concern that 

 128For more information on how EOIR provides legal resources to respondents without 

legal representation, see GAO-17-72.

129One of the experts and stakeholders explained that the appointment of judges to 

staggered 15-year terms could help alleviate this potential challenge.
Page 85 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts may be reluctant to 

assume the vast responsibility of administering a newly created court 

system.130 Regarding administrative challenges associated with the 

establishment of an independent administrative agency, one of the 

experts and stakeholders explained that this scenario might be overly 

complicated to implement since EOIR would need to develop its own 

administrative functions outside of DOJ. Further, this same expert and 

stakeholder stated that this scenario could also result in, to a large 

extent, a duplication of the existing immigration court system. 

According to one of the experts and stakeholders, creating a hybrid 

court system may further complicate the administration of the 

immigration court system and potentially result in difficulties for 

respondents.

• Procurement of resources: Five of the ten experts and stakeholders 

we interviewed expressed the concern that a restructured immigration 

court system, regardless of the scenario, would not be able to procure 

sufficient resources outside of DOJ. For example, one of the experts 

and stakeholders noted that a restructured independent court or 

administrative agency might have less leverage outside of DOJ to 

compete for resources. One of the experts and stakeholders noted 

that the existing immigration court system must compete with other 

DOJ funding priorities for resources.

• Trial level disconnection from the appellate level: One of the 

experts and stakeholders stated that if the hybrid scenario were to be 

adopted, the trial level may become more disconnected from the 

appellate level, due to the placement of the immigration courts within 

the executive branch and the appellate body outside of the executive 

branch.

Officials from existing court and adjudicatory systems that, according to 

experts and stakeholders, could serve as potential examples for 

restructuring also cited reasons for and against adopting characteristics 

from each of their respective systems. For instance, according to the 

Secretary of the Judicial Conference of the United State—which makes 

administrative policies for the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts, among other 

duties—the bankruptcy courts may not be a useful model for restructuring 

the immigration court system due to, among other factors, the complexity 

 130As previously noted, while the Judicial Conference of the United States does not take a 

position on whether or not Congress should restructure the immigration court system, it 

opposes efforts to require the federal judiciary to administer such a court.
Page 86 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

of their jurisdiction.131 Under law, the federal district court has original and 

exclusive jurisdiction of all bankruptcy cases, but each district court may 

refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings to the bankruptcy judges of its 

district and retains the authority to withdraw referral to the bankruptcy 

court and handle a bankruptcy case itself.132 In terms of establishing an 

independent immigration court system outside of the executive branch, 

the Judicial Conference of the United States also cautioned that placing 

immigration courts within the judiciary would strain the judiciary’s financial 

and administrative resources and ability to focus on existing criminal and 

civil adjudication.

An official from SSA’s ODAR—the component responsible for overseeing

the administrative hearings and appeals process—stated that they have 

experienced success using, among other practices, regional and national 

case assistance centers that assist local hearing offices with case 

preparation and decision writing. However, these officials also cited 

challenges with increasingly lengthy case files due to significant increases 

in the submission of medical evidence, staffing shortages, and the timely 

selection of administrative law judges through the Office of Personnel 

Management’s appointment process.133 Regarding the third type of court 

system—a hybrid of an independent court system and an administrative 

agency—CAVC officials explained that it is beneficial for the CAVC to 

have its budget reviewed by appropriators within the veterans community 

of interest instead of as part of the judiciary appropriations process. 

However, CAVC officials also cited challenges with its independent 

structure in that it is not directly supported by the Administrative Office of 

the U.S. Courts—the judiciary’s organization for assisting courts with 

administrative and managerial functions. As a result, the CAVC is 

responsible for many of its management functions, such as information 

technology support, procuring facility space, and hiring personnel, which 

can be challenging, according to these same officials. Additionally, one of 

 131For purposes of this report, we highlighted the bankruptcy courts as one example of a 

court system independent of the executive branch.

13228 U.S.C. §§ 157(a), 1334.

133According to SSA ODAR officials, the Office of Personnel Management maintains a 

register of individuals who have applied for the position of administrative law judge and 

who meet the minimum eligibility requirements according to the Office of Personnel 

Management’s qualifications and criteria. When a federal agency wants to hire 

administrative law judges, the agency requests a list of eligible candidates from the Office 

of Personnel Management, which then prepares a certificate of eligible candidates and 

then issues it to the agency, according to SSA ODAR officials. 
Page 87 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

the experts and stakeholders familiar with the BVA explained that its dual 

appellate structure with the CAVC reviewing BVA decisions and, in 

instances in which CAVC decisions are appealed, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewing CAVC decisions, can delay the 

decision-making process, among other challenges. This form of judicial 

review creates, according to this individual, redundancies in the review of 

BVA decisions. However, BVA officials explained that much of the delay 

may be attributed to the multiple layers of review within the VA before the 

appeal is heard at the BVA level. For instance, the VA must issue a new 

decision each time a veteran provides additional evidence for the appeal, 

which delays the VA’s certification of the appeal for a BVA hearing and 

can result in lengthy wait times for veterans, according to BVA officials.134

The doubling of the immigration courts’ backlog over the last decade to 

more than 437,000 cases at the beginning of fiscal year 2015 poses 

challenges to EOIR in meeting its mission to adjudicate immigration 

cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly administering and interpreting 

federal immigration laws. The effects of the case backlog are significant 

and wide-ranging, from some respondents waiting years to have their 

cases heard to immigration judges being able to spend less time 

considering cases. Taking steps to improve its workforce planning, hiring, 

technology utilization, and performance assessment could better position 

EOIR to address its case backlog and help improve the agency’s overall 

effectiveness and efficiency in carrying out its important mission.

EOIR has begun to address its workforce needs through its contract for 

workforce planning support and other recently-initiated efforts. However, 

EOIR could be better positioned to address its current and future staffing 

 134In the VA appeals system, a veteran initiates an appeal of a decision of a claim for VA 

benefits by filing a notice of disagreement. The agency of original jurisdiction then 

determines whether additional development of the claim is needed and, if so, undertakes 

that development and provides the veteran with a statement of the case, which contains a 

summary of the evidence, applicable laws and regulations, and a discussion of how such 

laws and regulations affect the determination. The veteran can then complete the appeal 

by filing a substantive appeal. If, after issuance of the statement of the case and before a 

case is certified to the BVA, the VA obtains additional evidence, the agency of original 

jurisdiction will generally issue a new decision known as a supplemental statement of the 

case. If the VA obtains more evidence prior to certifying the appeal to the BVA, the VA 

may require and issue additional supplemental statements. According to BVA officials, the 

VA submitted a legislative proposal to Congress in 2016 that would eliminate the 

redundant layers of review and provide a single-track appeals process with three options 

for a veteran to pursue following the decision on a VA benefits claim.

Conclusions
Page 88 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

needs by developing and implementing a strategic workforce plan that 

addresses key principles for effective strategic workforce planning, such 

as the determination of critical skills and competencies. Furthermore, 

assessing its hiring process, developing a hiring strategy, and taking 

actions to increase its efficiency could allow EOIR to hire judges more 

quickly and address immigration judge staffing gaps, which in turn could 

improve EOIR’s overall operations and help reduce the immigration 

courts’ case backlog.

EOIR could improve accountability and further empower the immigration 

courts to address the case backlog and strengthen operations by 

improving how the agency leverages technology. Specifically, identifying 

and establishing an oversight body and documenting and implementing a 

plan that is consistent with best practices for exercising oversight over 

ECAS until it is fully implemented would better position the agency to 

implement ECAS, thus providing efficiencies to assist the courts with 

addressing the backlog. Further, as EOIR takes steps that may result in 

increased use of VTC for hearings, which EOIR management officials 

cited as beneficial to addressing the agency’s caseload, collecting and 

analyzing data, such as data on appeals in which the use of VTC formed 

some basis for the appeal, could provide EOIR with further assurance 

that its use of VTC in immigration hearings is outcome-neutral. 

Additionally, soliciting feedback from respondents could help EOIR better 

ensure that its VTC program meets the needs of all users, including 

respondents whose cases are heard and decided through VTC.

Taking steps to improve how it assesses performance could also help 

EOIR identify effective management approaches that could help address 

the backlog. In particular, establishing comprehensive case completion 

goals would help EOIR more effectively monitor its performance. In 

addition, systematically analyzing the cause of certain continuances, 

particularly operational continuances, could provide EOIR with valuable 

information about potential challenges the immigration courts may be 

experiencing or areas that may merit additional guidance and training. 

Updating policies and procedures to ensure the timely and accurate 

recording of NTAs would provide EOIR greater assurance that its case 

management data are accurate—including the size of its case backlog. 

Further, improving the reliability of these data would allow EOIR to 

provide more accurate information in DOJ’s Annual Performance Report, 

which would give external stakeholders, including Congress and the 

public, a more accurate understanding of case completion times.
Page 89 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

To better address current and future staffing needs, we recommend that 

the Director of EOIR develop and implement a strategic workforce plan 

that addresses, among other areas, key principles of effective strategic 

workforce planning, including (1) determining critical skills and 

competencies needed to achieve current and future programmatic results; 

(2) developing strategies that are tailored to address gaps in number, 

deployment, and alignment of human capital approaches for enabling and 

sustaining the contributions of all critical skills and competencies; and (3) 

monitoring and evaluation of the agency’s progress toward its human 

capital goals and the contribution that human capital results have made 

toward achieving programmatic results.

To better address EOIR’s immigration judge staffing needs, we 

recommend that the Director of EOIR: (1) assess the immigration judge 

hiring process to identify opportunities for efficiency; (2) use the 

assessment results to develop a hiring strategy that targets short- and 

long-term human capital needs; and (3) implement any corrective actions 

related to the hiring process resulting from this assessment.

To help ensure that EOIR meets its cost and schedule expectations for 

ECAS, we recommend that the EOIR Director:

• identify and establish the appropriate entity for exercising oversight 

over ECAS through full implementation, and

• document and implement an oversight plan that is consistent with best 

practices for overseeing IT projects, including (1) establishing how the 

oversight body is to monitor program performance and progress 

toward expected cost, schedule, and benefits; (2) ensuring that 

corrective actions are identified and assigned to the appropriate 

parties at the first sign of cost, schedule, or performance slippages; 

and (3) ensuring that corrective actions are tracked until the desired 

outcomes are achieved.

To provide further assurance that EOIR’s use of VTC in immigration 

hearings is outcome-neutral, we recommend that the Director of EOIR:

• Collect more complete and reliable data on the number and type of 

hearings it conducts through VTC;

• Collect data on appeals in which the use of VTC formed some basis 

for the appeal, and the number of in-person hearing motions filed; and

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 90 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

• Use these and other data to assess any effects of VTC on immigration 

hearings and, as appropriate, address any issues identified through 

such an assessment.

To further ensure that EOIR’s VTC hearings meet all user needs and help 

EOIR identify and address technical issues with VTC hearings, we 

recommend that the Director of EOIR develop and implement a 

mechanism to solicit and monitor feedback from respondents regarding 

their satisfaction and experiences with VTC hearings, including the audio 

and visual quality of the hearing.

To better assess court performance and use data to identify potential 

management challenges, we recommend that the Director of EOIR take 

the following actions:

• Establish and monitor comprehensive case completion goals, 

including a goal for completing non-detained cases not currently 

captured by performance measures, and goals for cases it considers 

a priority;

• Systematically analyze immigration court continuance data to identify 

and address any operational challenges faced by courts or areas for 

additional guidance or training; and

• Update policies and procedures to ensure the timely and accurate 

recording of NTAs.

We provided a draft of this report to DOJ, including EOIR; ACUS; the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; VA; CAVC; SSA; and DHS for 

their review and comment. EOIR provided written comments, which are 

reproduced in appendix V; the remainder of the agencies did not provide 

written comments. DOJ, EOIR, the Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts, VA, SSA, and DHS provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate.

In its written comments, EOIR stated that it agrees with most of our 11 

recommendations and has begun to address them. However, the steps 

EOIR described taking do not fully address our recommendations. In 

addition, EOIR did not specifically state whether or not it agrees with 

individual recommendations. Rather, EOIR provided comments on the 

recommendations in five areas: (1) strategic workforce planning, (2) 

immigration judge staffing, (3) ECAS (EOIR’s new comprehensive e-filing 

effort), (4) VTC, and (5) court performance and management.

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 91 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Recommendation Areas

With regard to the first area, strategic workforce planning, which includes 

our recommendation that EOIR implement a strategic workforce plan that 

addresses key principles of effective strategic workforce planning, EOIR

stated that it recognizes the importance and benefits of strategic 

workforce planning, including the need to monitor and evaluate results. 

To this end, EOIR stated that it has a contract in place to determine the 

critical skills and competencies used in the immigration courts, particularly 

at the legal assistant level, and to then produce a workforce staffing 

model to achieve current and future operational and programmatic 

results. As discussed in this report, EOIR’s initial contract for the 

workforce planning report requires the development of a method or 

formula for assessing the need for additional immigration judges and 

staff. However, the contract documentation EOIR provided to us does not 

specifically require the contractor to identify critical skills and 

competencies or tailor identified requirements to current or future 

programmatic results. We agree with EOIR that this contract is a positive 

step, but we continue to believe that EOIR would further benefit from 

developing and implementing a strategic workforce plan that addresses, 

among other areas, key principles of effective strategic workforce 

planning. 

Regarding the second area, immigration judge staffing, which includes 

our recommendation that EOIR assess the immigration judge hiring 

process, EOIR stated that it has assessed this process, is implementing a 

hiring streamlining plan announced by the Attorney General on April 11, 

2017, and is committed to assessing the immigration judge hiring process 

on an ongoing basis. Specifically, EOIR stated that it has continually 

assessed its hiring process and made significant improvements. As 

discussed in this report, we found that while EOIR has undertaken efforts 

to improve aspects of its hiring process, it has not assessed its hiring 

process or developed a hiring strategy that is targeted to fill short- and 

long-term human capital needs consistent with best practices. For 

example, EOIR did not provide documentation demonstrating that it has 

systematically assessed its hiring process to identify opportunities for 

efficiency. Further, with regard to the recent hiring streamlining plan, this 

plan will, according to EOIR, change how it announces immigration judge 

positions, evaluates the files of candidates at both the agency- and 

department-levels, and approves candidates to enter on duty. EOIR

expects, according to its comments, that it will reduce the amount of time 

it takes to hire immigration judges in the future. EOIR’s development of a 

hiring plan is a positive step toward addressing our recommendation; 
Page 92 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

however, to fully address the intent of our recommendation, the agency

needs to provide documentation demonstrating that it has assessed the 

immigration judge hiring process, developed a hiring strategy that targets 

short- and long-term human capital needs, and implemented any 

necessary corrective actions. 

With respect to the third area, ECAS, regarding our recommendation that 

EOIR identify and establish the appropriate entity for exercising oversight 

over ECAS through full implementation, EOIR stated that it established an 

ECAS Executive Committee to provide effective oversight through the 

development and implementation of the ECAS solution. EOIR further 

stated that it established the Investment Review Board to review 

proposals for major IT investments exceeding $1 million and believes that 

in the future the ECAS Executive Committee, its subgroups, and the 

Investment Review Board will serve as vital institutions within EOIR to 

help ensure the effective oversight of ECAS implementation. EOIR also 

stated that it is committed to establishing the appropriate oversight body 

and while it fully intends to do so, it is not yet at the stage where this 

oversight body could make resource allocation decisions to implement a 

comprehensive e-filing system. As discussed in this report, according to 

the ECAS Executive Committee charter, the committee will dissolve after 

1 year when the ECAS roadmap for eventually determining the solution is 

identified. Additionally, as discussed in this report, EOIR OIT officials 

stated that the EOIR Investment Review Board was never intended to 

oversee ECAS implementation due to the detailed nature of this system’s 

implementation, and EOIR has not yet designated an oversight entity or 

documented a plan for overseeing ECAS during critical stages of its 

development and implementation. Given the ambiguity in EOIR’s plans 

for overseeing ECAS through full implementation and its need to better 

manage its longstanding efforts to develop a comprehensive e-filing 

system, we continue to believe that the agency would benefit from (1) 

identifying the appropriate entity for exercising oversight over ECAS 

through full implementation and (2) documenting and implementing an 

oversight plan that is consistent with best practices for overseeing IT 

projects.

With regard to the fourth area, EOIR’s use of VTC to conduct hearings, 

which includes our four recommendations that the agency, among other 

things, collect more complete and reliable data on its use of VTC in 

hearings and develop a mechanism to solicit feedback from respondents 

on these hearings, EOIR stated that it is committed to the effective 

utilization of VTC in immigration court proceedings. Specifically, EOIR

stated that although the U.S. Courts of Appeals have repeatedly upheld 
Page 93 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

the use of VTC in immigration hearings as comporting with due process 

requirements, EOIR is amenable to collecting additional data on the 

number and type of hearings conducted by VTC, as well as identifying 

appeals that raise the use of VTC as a basis for appeal. EOIR agreed that 

such data collection may assist the agency in identifying and addressing 

technical issues associated with VTC, as well as any possible effects on 

case outcomes that may relate to the use of VTC in immigration 

proceedings. If effectively implemented, this additional data collection 

should help address the intent of our recommendations focused on 

collecting more complete and reliable VTC hearing data. To fully address 

the intent of our recommendations for EOIR to collect data on the number 

of in-person hearing motions filed and how the agency might use these 

and other data to assess any effects of VTC on immigration hearings, 

EOIR needs to take additional actions focusing on the collection and 

analysis of VTC data. 

In response to our other VTC-related recommendation that EOIR develop 

and implement a mechanism to solicit and monitor feedback from 

respondents on their VTC hearings, EOIR stated that while EOIR is 

committed to making additional improvements to its VTC program, it is 

not feasible to solicit accurate and useful feedback concerning VTC from 

respondents in removal proceedings, which are inherently adversarial. As 

discussed in this report, to mitigate the concern that immigration hearings 

are inherently adversarial, EOIR could collect respondent feedback after 

a hearing, but not necessarily after the immigration judge has decided the 

case. Specifically, because some cases entail multiple hearings, EOIR 

could collect feedback after a VTC hearing but prior to the conclusion of 

the case and respondents knowing the outcome. Therefore, we continue 

to believe that developing and implementing a mechanism to solicit and 

monitor feedback from respondents regarding their satisfaction and 

experiences with VTC hearings could help EOIR further ensure that its 

VTC hearings meet all user needs and identify and address technical 

issues.

With regard to the fifth area related to court performance, EOIR stated 

that it agrees with the recommendations to establish and monitor 

comprehensive case completion goals, analyze continuance data, and 

update guidance for recording NTAs. Specifically, EOIR stated that it

should measure case completions in all categories and the agency will 

study whether to refine its current capabilities. EOIR also stated that it 

supports conducting additional analysis of immigration court continuance 

data and recognizes that additional guidance or training regarding 

continuances may be beneficial to ensure that immigration judges use 
Page 94 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

continuances appropriately in support of EOIR’s mission to adjudicate 

immigration cases in a careful and timely manner.

Methodology and Findings

In addition to providing comments on our recommendations, EOIR also 

took issue with certain aspects of our methodology and findings. In 

particular, EOIR stated that the report would benefit from additional 

context and information in four areas: (1) pending caseload; (2) workforce 

planning; (3) electronic case management, e-filing, and VTC; and (4) 

performance measurements. 

First, in regard to pending caseload, EOIR stated that the report is 

missing a contextualized discussion of why its caseload has grown. 

Specifically, EOIR stated that the report does not discuss various factors 

affecting its pending caseload, such as increasing case complexity; 

growth in the number of applications for relief, bond hearings, and 

detained cases; changing case priorities; and a decrease in immigration 

court staff. However, this report discusses EOIR’s perspective on factors 

that contributed to increases in the case backlog along with perspectives 

from DHS attorneys and other experts and stakeholders. For example, 

this report discusses EOIR’s perspective that a surge in new cases, 

beginning in 2014, contributed to the case backlog. Additionally, this 

report notes that EOIR officials and immigration judges highlighted 

increasing legal complexity as a contributing factor to longer cases and a 

growing case backlog. Further, this report states that EOIR officials cited 

Supreme Court decisions in 2013 and 2016, which define analytical steps 

a judge must complete in determining whether a criminal conviction 

renders a respondent removable and ineligible for relief. In regard to the 

effect of immigration court staffing on the case backlog, this report 

discusses the number of case completions per judge from fiscal year 

2006 through 2015 and found that the number of immigration judges 

increased during this period. 

Second, in regard to workforce planning, EOIR stated that our report did 

not sufficiently account for changes in the immigration judge hiring 

process, such as those due to a hiring freeze, and that our methodology 

and results in assessing the length of the hiring process, including the 

background investigation phase, were unclear and differed from EOIR’s 

own analysis. Specifically, EOIR stated that our analysis covered a period 

during which the agency was subject to a hiring freeze—January 2011 

through February 2014. However, this report both discusses EOIR 

officials’ perspective that this hiring freeze prolonged the hiring process 
Page 95 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

and includes our analysis of the time it took EOIR to hire immigration 

judges after the hiring freeze ended. Specifically, as discussed in this 

report, when we only included hires initiated after the hiring freeze ended 

in February 2014, we found that EOIR took an average of 647 days to 

hire an immigration judge. 

Regarding our methodology, we describe in this report how we 

determined the overall length of the hiring process, as well as phases of 

the hiring process. For instance, as discussed in this report, to calculate 

the average time it took EOIR to hire an immigration judge, we calculated 

the average number of calendar days between the day EOIR posted a 

vacancy announcement for the position and the day the judge started in 

the position. In regard to our hiring analysis results, EOIR stated that,

according to its own hiring analysis, for the 87 judge positions filled since 

the start of fiscal year 2016, the average number of days it took EOIR to 

hire these judges was 485 days, which differs from our result of 647 days. 

We would expect our results to differ from EOIR’s because we analyzed 

data for a different and longer period of time—February 2014 to August 

2016 instead of only fiscal year 2016. 

EOIR also raised concerns with our analysis of the time it took the 

department to complete background investigations during the hiring 

process. Specifically, EOIR stated that it could not replicate our finding of 

41 days to complete this phase of the hiring process. EOIR may not have 

been able to replicate our analysis because it assessed data for a 

different period of time than we did. Our sample included all judges who 

had entered on duty by August 2016, whereas EOIR’s sample included 

judges who had only completed background investigations—but had not 

necessarily entered on duty—by August 2016. Additionally, EOIR stated 

that that it is likely that the sample we used provides an inaccurate 

reflection of the length of this phase because it likely represents federal 

employees who already had a background investigation in place or being 

processed and, as a result, does not accurately reflect the time it takes to 

complete an investigation for non-federal employees. However, our 

analysis of the hiring process, including the background investigation 

phase, included all judges—both federal and non-federal employees—

and thus proportionately considered the time it took to conduct 

background investigations for non-federal employees hired during the 

period we examined.

Third, EOIR raised concerns regarding our approaches for assessing 

EOIR’s electronic case management, e-filing, and VTC program efforts. 

Specifically, EOIR stated that the report focuses on its prior electronic 
Page 96 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

case management initiatives only as they relate to the agency’s ability to 

fully implement a comprehensive e-filing system and does not 

acknowledge that these initiatives were critical in operating the courts and 

positioning the agency to be able to implement an e-filing system. 

However, this report describes several systems which, according to 

EOIR, are foundational to a comprehensive e-fling system, such as the 

case management, digital audio recording, eInfo, and eRegistration 

systems. For instance, as discussed in this report, the digital audio 

recording system EOIR implemented that allows the immigration courts to 

digitally record immigration hearings and provide an electronic transcript 

of the hearings was, according to EOIR OIT officials, a key capability they 

needed to develop before implementing a comprehensive e-filing system.

Additionally, EOIR disputed our finding that it could further ensure that Its 

VTC program meets user needs by collecting feedback from respondents 

on their VTC hearings because it believes the finding relied almost 

exclusively on anecdotal statements from interviews with immigration 

court officials, experts, and stakeholders. We did, in part, base our finding 

on interviews with judges, administrators, and DHS attorneys assigned to 

a non-probability sample of six immigration courts, and our interviews with 

10 immigration court experts and stakeholders identified through a 

detailed selection process, as described in appendix I. However, as 

described in this report, we primarily assessed EOIR’s implementation of 

its VTC program against ACUS best practices for using VTC in hearings, 

along with evidence from EOIR officials responsible for implementing the 

VTC program that the agency does not systematically collect feedback on 

VTC immigration hearings from respondents. Specifically, the ACUS best 

practices recommend that agencies maintain open lines of 

communication with participants to receive feedback about the use of 

VTC for the hearing, and that agencies use post-hearing surveys or other 

appropriate methods to collect information about participants’ experiences 

and satisfaction with the VTC hearing. The information from our 

interviews with immigration court officials, experts, and stakeholders 

provided insights and examples into some of the circumstances and 

challenges associated with the use of VTC in hearings and why it could 

be important for EOIR to solicit and monitor feedback from respondents 

regarding their VTC hearings. 

Fourth, in regard to performance measurement, EOIR stated that we 

conflated performance measurements and case completion goals and 

that the 11 case completion goals that the agency previously had were a 

hindrance to the efficient processing of cases. Standards for Internal 

Control in the Federal Government define a performance measure as a 
Page 97 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

means of evaluating the entity’s performance in achieving objectives and 

quantitative objectives are those where performance measures may be a 

targeted percentage or numerical value.135 Since case completion goals, 

as described in this report, measure whether immigration judges are 

completing a specific percentage of cases within a specified time frame 

and thus meet the definition of a performance measure, we viewed case 

completion goals as performance measures. As discussed in this report, 

in fiscal year 2010 EOIR eliminated and condensed several of its 11 

performance goals, leaving five total performance goals for case 

completion times. We acknowledge in this report EOIR’s perspective that 

when all cases are subject to case completion goals, EOIR staff do not 

know which cases to prioritize. For example, as discussed in this report, 

EOIR officials stated that tracking case completion goals for non-priority 

cases, such as non-detained cases, would limit the agency’s ability to 

focus on meeting case completion goals for prioritized cases. However, 

as discussed in this report, EOIR does not have case completion goals 

for some of the cases it considers priorities, such as individuals who have 

been released from detention pursuant to a Rodriguez bond hearing. 

Further, as discussed in this report, such goals would not preclude EOIR 

from reflecting agency priorities by assigning priority cases a shorter case 

completion goal, a larger percentage goal, or both.

EOIR also raised concerns regarding how we describe case completion 

goals for prioritized cases in the report. Specifically, EOIR stated that 

while it acknowledges that it has not recently met the case completion 

goals for its top priority—detained cases—this is due, in part, to the 

addition of new priorities in 2014. We acknowledge in this report that, 

while detained cases were a priority prior to 2014, EOIR began in 2014 to 

also prioritize the cases of detained recent border crossers, 

unaccompanied children, and families held in detention or released on 

alternatives to detention. Additionally, EOIR stated that, contrary to what 

we described in this report, it had case completion goals for its 2014 

priorities and that it met all of these goals, which were to schedule these 

cases within specified timeframes. However, as discussed in this report, 

EOIR identified certain types of cases as priorities for adjudication and 

issued guidance to courts on how to prioritize these cases through their 

scheduling of hearings, but EOIR has not established goals to ensure the 

timely completion for all of these cases. EOIR also clarified in its written 

comments that, contrary to what we described in our draft report, it

 135GAO-14-704G.
Page 98 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

includes cases involving unaccompanied children in the care and custody 

of the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee 

Resettlement who do not have a sponsor in the detained case category 

for case completion goal purposes. We amended the report to reflect this 

clarification. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, 

and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no 

charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix VI.

Rebecca Gambler 

Director, Homeland Security and Justice
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 99 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

This report addresses (1) what Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Executive 

Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) data indicate about its caseload, 

including the backlog of cases, and potential contributing factors and 

effects of the backlog according to stakeholders; (2) how EOIR manages 

and oversees immigration court operations, including workforce planning, 

hiring, and technology utilization; (3) the extent to which EOIR has 

assessed immigration court performance, including analyzing relevant 

information, such as data on case continuances; and (4) scenarios that 

have been proposed for restructuring EOIR’s immigration court system 

and the reasons that have been offered for or against these proposals.

To address all four objectives, we analyzed agency documentation, 

consulted with immigration court system experts and stakeholders, and 

interviewed headquarters officials from EOIR and the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). Specifically, we reviewed, among other 

documentation: policies and procedures for immigration court operations; 

manuals describing EOIR’s case management system; contractual 

documents, such as contractual documents for EOIR’s workforce 

planning study; EOIR’s plans for implementing a comprehensive 

electronic filing system; and reports related to the agency’s performance 

assessment system and case completion goals. We also interviewed 

selected experts and stakeholders on the immigration court system and 

reviewed publications related to the effects of the case backlog on court 

stakeholders, EOIR’s management and oversight of the immigration court 

system, and proposals for restructuring the immigration court system. 

Additionally, we interviewed EOIR headquarters officials from the Office 

of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ), which oversees the immigration 

courts, and the Offices of Administration; General Counsel; Information 

Technology; and Planning, Analysis, and Statistics. We also interviewed 

headquarters officials from the U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), the office 

responsible for overseeing the DHS attorneys who represent the 

government in immigration proceedings at the courts, to obtain their 

perspectives regarding any effects of the case backlog on DHS and EOIR 

management and oversight of the immigration courts.

Additionally, we visited a non-probability sample of six immigration courts 

in Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; Houston, Texas; Port Isabel, 

Texas; San Francisco, California; and Seattle, Washington to interview 

immigration court staff and observe immigration hearings. Toward 

maximizing the diversity of the sites we visited, we selected them to 

include courts with relatively large and small case backlogs; relatively 

high and low case completions per judge; a large number of detained 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 100 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

cases, which are deemed a priority by EOIR; and that have experienced 

staffing shortfalls. We also selected courts in different geographic regions 

and courts that are proximate to other courts. At each court we conducted 

semi-structured interviews with immigration judges and DHS attorneys 

assigned to OPLA’s Offices of the Chief Counsel proximate to each 

immigration court and observed a variety of hearings, including master 

calendar and individual merits hearings. We interviewed court 

administrators in five immigration courts and observed hearings 

conducted by video-teleconferencing (VTC) in three of the immigration 

courts we visited. In total, we interviewed 12 judges, 4 court 

administrators, and 12 DHS attorneys from six offices. Because 

immigration judges have large caseloads and constrained schedules, we 

interviewed judges who were available to speak with us during our 

scheduled visits. For the immigration court staff interviews, we asked 

questions about (1) the court’s case receipts, completions, backlog of 

cases over time, and any causes or effects of the backlog on 

stakeholders; (2) EOIR’s management and oversight of the court, 

including court staffing, hiring, and technology utilization; and (3) how 

EOIR assesses the court’s performance. For the DHS attorney interviews, 

we asked questions about any effects case backlogs have had on their 

work; their views on the court’s case management practices, including the 

use of technology and coordination between the immigration courts and 

DHS; and scenarios proposed by experts and stakeholders for 

restructuring the immigration court system. Since we selected a nonprobability sample of courts to visit, the information we obtained cannot 

be generalized more broadly to all immigration courts. However, it

provides important context and insights into EOIR’s case backlog, 

particularly effects of the backlog on court stakeholders, EOIR’s 

management and oversight of the immigration court system, and expert 

proposals for restructuring the immigration court system.

To address our first objective, what EOIR data indicate about its 

caseload, including the backlog of cases, and potential contributing 

factors and effects of the backlog according to stakeholders, we first 

obtained and analyzed data on immigration case receipts and 

completions from EOIR’s case management system from fiscal years 

2006 through 2015 which covers the period of time since our previous 

report on the subject in August 2006 until the last full fiscal year of data 

available at the time we began our review in November 2015.1 We 

 1

GAO, Executive Office For Immigration Review: Caseload Performance Reporting Needs 

Improvement, GAO-06-771 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 11, 2006).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 101 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

assessed the reliability of these data by reviewing system documentation, 

interviewing knowledgeable officials about system controls, and 

conducting electronic testing. We determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives. We 

included in our analysis all immigration court cases received or completed 

that were adjudicated by EOIR immigration judges in EOIR immigration 

courts or at the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).2 We used these data 

to determine the number of new Notices to Appear (NTAs) received from 

DHS each fiscal year and the number of cases each court completed 

within a fiscal year. We determined the case backlog for each court by 

calculating the number of cases that were opened in previous fiscal years 

that remained open at the start of the new fiscal year. We also 

determined the time immigration courts took to complete cases each 

fiscal year by calculating the number of calendar days between the date 

EOIR received the NTA from DHS and the date the case was initially 

completed, and computed the median of these durations. We further 

calculated case completion times for different types of cases, such as 

removal, credible fear, and asylum cases, and cases in which the 

respondent was detained or not detained. Since later motions to reopen, 

remand or redetermine a case can occur many years after the initial 

decision and are out of the control of immigration court judges, we 

considered a case complete when the judge made an initial ruling on the 

case and excluded these later actions from our analysis of case 

completions times.

We used the same procedures described above to calculate the case 

backlog for appeals cases. To determine the time the BIA took to 

complete cases each fiscal year, we calculated the number of calendar 

days between the date the appeal was filed and the date the appeal was 

completed, and computed the median of these durations. We also 

calculated appeal completion times for different types of appeals such as 

appeals of removal cases, appeals of other decisions by immigration 

judges such as appeals of bond redeterminations, motions to reopen 

when the original case was held in absentia, and interlocutory appeals, 

and DHS decisions.

In addition, during our interviews with immigration court judges, court 

administrators, DHS attorneys, and 10 experts and stakeholders, the 

 2

We did not analyze data from the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer

because its caseload is small in comparison to that of the immigration courts and the BIA 

and, as a result, would not significantly affect our case backlog analysis.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 102 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

selection of which we describe further below, we obtained their 

perspectives on potential contributing factors for the case backlog as well 

as the effects of the backlog on respondents, attorneys, and immigration 

staff.

To address our second objective, how EOIR manages and oversees the 

immigration court system, we identified and analyzed relevant literature 

addressing EOIR’s management of the immigration courts. Specifically, a 

GAO research librarian conducted searches of scholarly and peer 

reviewed publications; trade and industry articles; association, nonprofit, 

and think tank publications; congressional hearings and transcripts; 

government reports; dissertations; and general news articles from 

January 2000 through November 2015 pertinent to the immigration court 

system.3 The literature search produced 363 related publications, of 

which we determined 22 were relevant to this objective by reviewing each 

publication’s content for relevancy to EOIR’s management and oversight 

of the immigration court system. Following an initial review to further 

refine the scope of publications most relevant to this objective, an 

additional GAO analyst then independently reviewed these reports to 

identify the most commonly cited management issues affecting the 

immigration court system. Any differences between their assessments 

were reconciled to reach agreement on the management issues. This 

process identified workforce planning and hiring, technology utilization, 

and performance assessment—the focus of our third objective—as the 

most prominent issues raised by these publications related to EOIR’s 

management and oversight of the immigration court system.

To assess EOIR’s workforce planning efforts, we analyzed documents 

related to its workforce planning initiatives and contract, such as the 

contractor-provided blanket purchase agreement describing the 

deliverables, and interviewed EOIR headquarters OCIJ and Office of 

Administration officials about how it determines its workforce needs. We 

then assessed EOIR’s workforce planning and hiring processes against 

GAO’s key principles for effective strategic workforce planning and 

human capital self-assessment checklist, which provides human capital 

 3

We selected this time period to capture both recent and historical perspectives on EOIR’s 

management of the immigration court system as well as changes to immigration law and 

court operations.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 103 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

guidance for agencies.4 We also reviewed EOIR’s most recent Strategic 

Plan, which covered 2008-2013, to understand the agency’s workforce 

planning goals.5

To assess EOIR’s hiring efforts, we analyzed data on the number of 

immigration judges it was authorized by Congress to hire and the number 

of immigration judges who had entered on duty for fiscal years 2006 

through 2015. We also analyzed data related to timeframes for hiring 

immigration judges from fiscal years 2011 through August 2016 to 

determine the length of the hiring process. Specifically, through interviews 

with EOIR officials, we identified two sources of data on the agency’s 

hiring timeframes for new immigration judges: (1) hard copy personnel 

files for all immigration judges hired since fiscal year 2011; and (2) a 

spreadsheet tracking key dates for hiring immigration judges that the 

agency developed in fiscal year 2015. Through reviewing these sources 

we observed that EOIR’s personnel files generally included the date a 

judge applied for a position and entered on duty, but not detailed interim 

dates, such as those associated with background checks. In contrast, the 

agency’s spreadsheet included such detailed information. To capture both 

the longer time period encompassed by the personnel files and more 

detailed dates in EOIR’s spreadsheet, we collected and analyzed data 

from both sources. Specifically, for judges hired from fiscal year 2011 

through February 2016, we reviewed hard copy personnel files and 

collected available dates in the hiring process using a data collection 

instrument. To ensure sufficient data reliability, two GAO staff 

independently reviewed each hiring file and then reconciled any 

discrepancies between the data collected. For judges hired from fiscal 

year 2015 until August 2016, we used the tracking spreadsheet as the 

primary source of hiring data. We assessed the reliability of data in this 

spreadsheet by comparing a sample of dates in it to those in 

corresponding personnel files. We also gathered information on the 

reliability of the hiring data through interviews with EOIR headquarters 

officials and determined that the data in both the personnel files and 

tracking spreadsheet were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our 

reporting objectives.

 4

GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, 

GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2013); and Human Capital: A Self-Assessment 

Checklist for Agency Leaders, GAO/OCG-00-14G (Washington, DC: September 2000). 

5

EOIR, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2008-2013, (Washington, D.C.: January 2008). 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 104 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Using the results of our file review and the tracking spreadsheet, we 

developed a consolidated file with all available dates in the hiring process 

for immigration judges who were hired and entered on duty from fiscal 

years 2011 through August 2016. We then analyzed these data to 

determine average total hiring time for all judges as well as average time 

for interim steps in the hiring process for judges who were hired and 

entered on duty from fiscal year 2015 through August 2016.

We also interviewed EOIR headquarters officials to obtain information on 

the agency’s hiring process for immigration judges, including reasons for 

any delays, and any efforts to assess the process. We assessed EOIR’s 

hiring process against GAO’s human capital self-assessment checklist, a 

diagnostic tool for managers to use in assessing their agencies’ human 

capital policies and practices.6

To assess how EOIR utilizes technology in the immigration courts, 

particularly its efforts to implement a comprehensive electronic-filing (efiling) system and its use of VTC for immigration hearings, we reviewed 

pertinent agency documentation, interviewed EOIR headquarters and 

immigration court officials from the six courts we visited, and observed 

technology use during these site visits. We analyzed available 

documentation related to EOIR’s e-filing efforts since 2001—when the 

agency initiated efforts to implement an e-filing system—such as a 2001 

executive staff briefing and a 2005 alternatives analysis. For EOIR’s most 

recent comprehensive e-filing effort, the EOIR Court and Appeals 

Systems (ECAS), we analyzed, among other documents, the ECAS 

project plan, business requirements, and ECAS Executive Committee 

Charter. Regarding VTC use, we reviewed documentation such as the 

Immigration Judge Benchbook and VTC training materials, to determine 

how immigration judges are to use VTC for immigration hearings.7

Additionally, we interviewed EOIR officials from its Office of Information 

Technology—responsible for implementing technology at EOIR—and 

immigration court staff at the six immigration courts we visited to obtain 

information on EOIR’s efforts to implement a comprehensive e-filing 

system, including their perspectives on how an e-filing system would 

 6

GAO, Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders, 

GAO/OCG-00-14G (Washington, DC: September 2000). 

7

EOIR’s Immigration Judge Benchbook is a web-based tool to assist immigration judges 

with the adjudication of immigration cases. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 105 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

affect immigration court operations. To understand how EOIR manages it 

VTC program, including any efforts to assess and collect feedback on this 

program, we interviewed the OCIJ official responsible for implementing 

the program. We also interviewed immigration court officials at all six 

immigration courts and observed a range of hearings held by VTC at 

three of the courts we visited to gather information on the audio and 

visual quality and other operational aspects of VTC hearings. Additionally, 

we interviewed DHS attorneys from OPLA’s Offices of the Chief Counsel 

assigned to each immigration court we visited and selected experts and 

stakeholders on the immigration court system to obtain their perspectives 

on EOIR’s ongoing development of a comprehensive e-filing system and 

the benefits and challenges of VTC hearings.8 We assessed EOIR’s effort 

to implement a comprehensive e-filing system against best practices for 

developing and acquiring technology, including oversight of information 

technology projects.9 In addition, we assessed EOIR’s implementation of 

its VTC program against best practices established by the Administrative 

Conference of the United States (ACUS) that provide technical, 

operational, and environmental guidance on how agencies may 

implement or improve their use of VTC in administrative hearings and 

related proceedings.10

To address our third objective on the extent to which EOIR has assessed 

immigration court performance, we analyzed EOIR’s performance 

monitoring activities and measures from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal 

year 2015. Specifically, we reviewed internal and external documentation 

related to performance measures and goals, such as internal quarterly 

reports on case completion times, to determine the extent to which EOIR 

has established performance measures, met its goals, and has 

 8

Our process for selecting these experts is explained below.

9

Project Management Institute, Inc., The Standard for Program Management–Third 

Edition, 2013; Software Engineering Institute/Carnegie Mellon, Capability Maturity ModeI® 

Integration (CMMI®) for Development, Version 1.3, CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033 (Hanscomb 

AFB, Massachusetts: November 2010) and CMMI® for Acquisition, Version 1.3, 

CMU/SEI-2010-TR-032 (Hanscomb AFB, Massachusetts: November 2010); GAO, 

Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for Assessing and 

Improving Process Maturity, GAO-04-394G (Washington, D.C.: March 2004); and GAO, 

Immigration Benefits System: Better Informed Decision Making Needed on Transformation 

Program, GAO-15-415 (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2015).

10Center for Legal and Court Technologies and the Administrative Conference of the 

United States, Report to the Administrative Conference of the United States: Best 

Practices for Using Video Teleconferencing for Hearings and Related Proceedings

(Washington D.C.: 2014).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 106 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

performance measures in place that reflect the majority of its caseload 

and case priorities. Furthermore, we reviewed DOJ documents, such as a 

DOJ Office of Inspector General report and DOJ’s Annual Performance 

Reports, to gain additional context for how DOJ uses EOIR’s performance 

information to assess agency and departmental efforts to meet its 

strategic objective of adjudicating all immigration cases promptly and 

impartially.11 We also interviewed EOIR officials, including OCIJ officials, 

on EOIR performance measures and goals, and other performance 

monitoring activities, such as the Immigration Court Evaluation Program. 

We further analyzed data from EOIR’s case tracking and management 

system to determine how these data support EOIR’s performance 

monitoring activities. As previously mentioned, we determined that these 

EOIR data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

Specifically, we calculated the percentage of EOIR’s caseload that may or 

may not be subject to performance goals, and determined the number of 

priority cases for which EOIR has received NTAs for which it does and 

does not have case completion goals. We assessed EOIR’s performance 

monitoring activities and measures against Standards for Internal Control 

in the Federal Government, EOIR’s most recent strategic plan covering 

fiscal years 2008 through 2013, and best practices on using performance 

information for management decisions.12

To assess EOIR’s use of continuance data to guide court operations, we 

also analyzed EOIR’s data on case continuances from fiscal years 2006 

through 2015 to determine the number and type of case continuances 

that judges have issued. We analyzed EOIR’s guidance to judges on the 

use of continuances as well as EOIR’s practices related to these data and 

EOIR’s practices against Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government.13

We further used EOIR’s data on NTAs to determine the extent to which 

EOIR is recording NTAs in a timely and accurate manner. Specifically, we 

compared the date EOIR received the NTA from the DHS to the date that 

 11Department of Justice Office of Inspector General, Management of Immigration Cases 

and Appeals by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, I-2013-001 (Washington, 

D.C.: October 2012).

12GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 10, 1999); and GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency 

use of Performance Information for Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept.9, 2005).

13GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 107 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

EOIR entered the NTA into its case management system. We also 

reviewed EOIR guidance related to entering NTAs and interviewed EOIR 

and DHS attorneys about practices related to the recording of NTAs in a 

timely and accurate manner. We then compared this information to 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government governing 

information and communication.14

To address the fourth objective, what scenarios have been proposed for 

restructuring the immigration court system, we obtained information on 

restructuring scenarios, including reasons for and against these 

proposals, from experts and stakeholders on the immigration court 

system. To select the experts and stakeholders, we first reviewed 

relevant literature on the immigration court system, particularly proposals 

for restructuring the system. Similar to the search we conducted for 

literature on EOIR’s management of the immigration courts, a GAO 

research librarian conducted searches of scholarly and peer reviewed 

publications; trade and industry articles; association, nonprofit, and think 

tank publications; congressional hearings and transcripts; government 

reports; dissertations; and general news articles from 2000 through 

January 2016 pertinent to proposals for immigration court system 

restructuring.15 We also reviewed literature identified as relevant by 

GAO’s Office of General Counsel as well as individuals affiliated with 

academia and legal associations.

This literature search produced 21 related publications, which we 

reviewed for relevance to this objective and methodological quality, and 

determined that 9 publications were appropriate to use to identify experts 

and stakeholders. Specifically, through this review, we identified an initial 

list of experts and stakeholders who had published at least one 

publication examining one or more aspects of a potential restructuring of 

the immigration court system in a refereed medium, such as journal 

 148 C.F.R. § 1239.1(a). These federal regulations state that formal removal proceedings 

begin with the filing of an NTA with the immigration court. GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. These 

Standards state, among other things, that federal managers should implement control 

activities through documented policies and procedures to ensure the objectives of the 

agency will be achieved and also call for agencies to communicate quality information with 

external parties, such as other government entities to make informed decisions and 

evaluate the entity’s performance in achieving key objectives.

15We considered work published over this 15-year period to both capture recent 

publications and maximize the number of publications resulting from the search given the 

limited number of publications addressing proposals for restructuring the immigration court 

system.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 108 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

articles and think tank studies. These experts and stakeholders included 

individuals, such as law professors, and groups, such as the American 

Bar Association. To assess the methodological quality of the selected 

expert’s and stakeholder’s studies, we reviewed the analytical methods 

used in the research, eliminated some research if we felt the methods 

were not appropriate or rigorous, and then summarized the research 

findings. After selecting experts and stakeholders based on their 

published work, we also considered their type and depth of experience 

with the immigration court system. Specifically, we gathered information 

on the experts’ and stakeholders’ affiliations with any organizations, such 

as professional associations or nonprofit groups, and their years of 

experience studying or working with the immigration court system, and if 

a group, the source of funding for this group.16 We also considered those 

individuals and groups recommended by EOIR as experts on the 

immigration court system and by the experts and stakeholders 

themselves. We evaluated these recommendations based on the number 

of times an individual or organization was cited as a credible expert or 

stakeholder and the type of experience and background of the cited 

expert or stakeholder to help ensure diversity and inclusiveness among 

our selected experts and stakeholders. Toward maintaining EOIR’s 

impartiality as an office within DOJ, EOIR officials elected not to provide 

perspectives on how, if at all, the immigration courts should be 

restructured or associated advantages and disadvantages. To mitigate 

the absence of EOIR officials’ perspectives on restructuring, we also 

considered whether experts and stakeholders recommended by other 

experts and stakeholders had formerly worked for EOIR in selecting our 

sample of experts and stakeholders.

 16We assessed potential biases in our experts and stakeholders and consider biases a 

possibility given some of their affiliations. We mitigated the impacts of these potential 

biases by: selecting experts and stakeholders with a wide range of affiliations, including 

federal agency officials, academics, non-profit representatives, immigrant rights 

advocates, and immigration attorneys or judges; disclosing their affiliations in our report; 

and attributing their views.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 109 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

We selected the following 10 individuals and organizations as experts and 

stakeholders to interview:

1. American Bar Association: Established in 1878, the bar is a voluntary 

organization whose mission is to support the legal profession by 

providing resources to attorneys and accrediting law schools, among 

other things.

2. American Immigration Lawyers Association: Non-partisan national 

association of attorneys and law professors who practice and teach 

immigration law.

3. Appleseed Network and the Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice: 

Research, education, and advocacy organization that works to 

achieve reform by addressing policies and practices that relate to 

social justice and government effectiveness issues.

4. Lenni Benson and Russell Wheeler: Lenni Benson—a Professor of 

Law at New York Law School—and Russell Wheeler, President of the 

Governance Institute and Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution, 

co-authored a report on the immigration court system for ACUS.

17 The 

views and opinions they expressed were their own, and not those of 

the ACUS. We considered them as one of our experts and 

stakeholders.

5. Federal Bar Association: Dedicated to the advancement of the 

science of jurisprudence and to promoting the welfare, interests, 

education, and professional development of all attorneys involved in 

federal law.

6. Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center: Provides 

direct legal services to, and advocates for, immigrants, refugees, and 

asylum seekers through policy reform, impact litigation, and public 

education.

7. Eliza Klein: Former immigration judge who served on the Miami, 

Florida; Boston, Massachusetts; and Chicago, Illinois immigration 

courts from 1994 to 2015.

 17Lenni B. Benson & Russell R. Wheeler, Enhancing Quality and Timeliness in 

Immigration Removal Adjudication, (Washington, D.C.: June 7, 2012). ACUS is an 

independent executive branch agency charged with convening expert representatives 

from the public and private sector to investigate, deliberate, and recommend 

improvements to administrative process and procedure.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 110 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

8. National Association for Immigration Judges: Designated as the 

recognized representative for collective bargaining for all U.S. 

immigration judges.

9. Angelo Paparelli: Private bar immigration attorney and partner in the 

Business Immigration Practice Group of Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

10. Paul Wickham Schmidt: BIA Chairman and member from 1995 to 

2001 and former immigration judge from 2003 to 2016.

We used semi-structured interview questions to gather information from 

these experts and stakeholders on scenarios for restructuring the 

immigration court system, including reasons for and against various 

restructuring proposals. We provided relevant excerpts from our draft 

report to these experts and stakeholders to confirm the accuracy of the 

information they provided. These entities may not be representative of the 

universe of experts and stakeholders on the immigration court system 

and therefore may not represent all views on this topic; however, their 

views provide insights on proposals for restructuring the immigration court 

system.

In addition, we interviewed officials and reviewed related documentation 

from existing court and adjudicatory systems that could, according to the 

experts and stakeholders we interviewed, serve as examples of the 

possible court structures. The existing systems were the U.S. Bankruptcy 

Courts, the Social Security Administration’s Office of Disability 

Adjudication and Review, and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals and Court 

of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

To identify the potential effects of restructuring on immigration court 

system costs, we analyzed EOIR budget data from fiscal years 2005 

through 2016. Specifically, we obtained and analyzed data regarding 

EOIR budget requests and appropriations for this time period, as well as 

expenditures for fiscal years 2012 through 2015. In particular, we 

determined EOIR’s primary cost categories, such as personnel 

compensation and benefits, and expenditures among the immigration 

courts, the BIA, and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2015 to June 2017

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 111 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Immigration Court Case Backlog, 

Case Receipts, and Case Completions, Fiscal 

Years 2012 through 2015

Page 112 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration 

Review (EOIR) conducts immigration hearings at 58 immigration courts 

located nationwide. For each court from fiscal years 2012 through 2015, 

the following tables provide:

• Case backlog—the number of cases pending at the start of the fiscal 

year in that court;

• New case receipts—the number of new Notices to Appear (NTA) that 

the court received from the Department of Homeland Security within 

the fiscal year;

• Other case receipts—the number of other case receipts that the court 

received within the fiscal year, such as cases that were 

administratively closed and then reopened or cases remanded from 

the Board of Immigration Appeals;

• Case completions—the number of cases each court completed within 

the fiscal year;

• Change of venue or transfer proceedings—the number of Change of 

Venue or Transfer proceedings that the court held within the fiscal 

year; and

• Total caseload—the total number of cases pending at the start of the 

fiscal year and new and other cases referred to the court during the 

year.

Table 6: Case Backlog, Receipts, Completions, Changes of Venue or Transfers, and Caseload by Immigration Court, Fiscal 

Year 2012

Court name

Case 

backlog

New case 

receipts

Other case 

receipts

Case 

completions

Change of 

venue or 

transfer

Total annual 

caseload 

Adelanto, California 1,216 7,036 871 4,613 3,354 9,123

Arlington, Virginia 9,225 4,729 4,211 5,299 1,916 18,165

Atlanta, Georgia 7,198 4,623 2,644 4,062 884 14,465

Aurora, Colorado 364 2,966 206 1,799 1,395 3,536

Baltimore, Maryland 5,748 2,172 1,955 4,073 277 9,875

Batavia, New York* 270 1,208 167 960 514 1,645

Bloomington (St. Paul), Minnesota 3,121 2,738 961 2,678 812 6,820

Boston, Massachusetts 9,681 4,337 2,954 5,889 1,111 16,972

Buffalo, New York 2,081 994 843 944 555 3,918

Charlotte, North Carolina 4,281 2,628 1,453 3,298 248 8,362

Chicago, Illinois 16,778 9,866 3,583 8,240 3,264 30,227

Appendix II: Immigration Court Case 

Backlog, Case Receipts, and Case 

Completions, Fiscal Years 2012 through 

2015
Appendix II: Immigration Court Case Backlog, 

Case Receipts, and Case Completions, Fiscal 

Years 2012 through 2015

Page 113 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Court name

Case 

backlog

New case 

receipts

Other case 

receipts

Case 

completions

Change of 

venue or 

transfer

Total annual 

caseload 

Cleveland, Ohio 4,010 2,958 1,220 2,811 866 8,188

Dallas, Texas 5,917 6,872 2,731 6,841 1,527 15,520

Denver, Colorado 7,776 1,158 1,978 3,045 355 10,912

Detroit, Michigan 3,144 2,399 827 2,917 575 6,370

El Paso, Texas* 413 2,364 181 1,422 1,005 2,958

El Paso, Texas 5,483 4,779 1,966 3,423 2,285 12,228

Elizabeth Detention Center, 

New Jersey

853 2,559 380 1,581 1,882 3,792

Eloy, Arizona 1,318 5,921 421 3,802 2,682 7,660

Fishkill, New York 181 223 49 225 63 453

Florence, Arizona* 863 4,565 315 2,616 2,336 5,743

Guaynabo (San Juan), Puerto Rico 831 479 150 827 194 1,460

Harlingen, Texas 4,681 4,965 2,708 2,763 5,778 12,354

Hartford, Connecticut 1,618 843 572 1,335 115 3,033

Honolulu, Hawaii 509 380 239 699 98 1,128

Houston, Texas* 1,287 9,702 1,462 7,215 3,712 12,451

Houston, Texas 9,396 3,144 4,750 2,808 1,795 17,290

Imperial, California 984 1,191 615 1,145 546 2,790

Kansas City, Missouri 3,958 2,799 1,087 3,203 811 7,844

Krome North, Florida* 1,267 6,732 644 5,082 2,539 8,643

Las Vegas, Nevada 3,097 2,129 841 2,185 207 6,067

Los Angeles, California 50,657 13,931 10,801 16,094 5,345 75,389

Los Fresnos (Port Isabel), Texas* 594 3,732 258 2,127 2,112 4,584

Memphis, Tennessee 5,716 1,820 1,445 2,233 384 8,981

Miami, Florida 11,715 4,754 4,458 7,200 1,287 20,927

New Orleans, Louisiana 2,282 794 1,874 663 537 4,950

New York City, New York 45,657 12,049 7,690 17,775 1,667 65,396

Newark, New Jersey 9,909 3,623 3,745 4,595 819 17,277

Oakdale Federal Detention Center, 

Louisiana

1,163 6,566 1,090 5,571 2,673 8,819

Omaha, Nebraska 5,357 2,802 1,725 2,496 1,401 9,884

Orlando, Florida 5,745 2,114 2,005 3,610 382 9,864

Otay Mesa, California 375 1,722 202 1,251 711 2,299

Pearsall, Texas 611 4,925 260 2,565 2,813 5,796

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 5,167 1,185 1,344 2,322 367 7,696

Phoenix, Arizona 9,896 3,253 2,777 1,819 2,026 15,926
Appendix II: Immigration Court Case Backlog, 

Case Receipts, and Case Completions, Fiscal 

Years 2012 through 2015

Page 114 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Court name

Case 

backlog

New case 

receipts

Other case 

receipts

Case 

completions

Change of 

venue or 

transfer

Total annual 

caseload 

Portland, Oregon 3,457 681 830 1,461 321 4,968

Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands 79 104 30 135 11 213

Salt Lake City, Utah 1,285 1,732 243 1,836 58 3,260

San Antonio, Texas 7,982 6,920 5,955 4,727 5,785 20,857

San Diego, California 4,501 2,085 1,300 2,135 1,125 7,886

San Francisco, California 18,717 6,675 5,370 6,993 3,093 30,762

Seattle, Washington 5,614 1,022 2,139 2,482 810 8,775

Stewart Detention Facility, Georgia 966 9,007 208 8,299 1,082 10,181

Tacoma, Washington 774 5,063 330 3,008 2,208 6,167

Tucson, Arizona 1,301 1,666 675 1,768 187 3,642

Ulster, New York 209 399 78 416 85 686

Varick, New York* 925 1,716 398 1,498 756 3,039

York, Pennsylvania 629 4,483 646 3,478 1,770 5,758

All 318,832 214,282 100,860 206,357 83,516 633,974

Source: GAO analysis of Executive Office for Immigration Review data. | GAO-17-438

Note: Total caseload excludes changes of venue or transfer.

*Indicates an immigration court co-located with a Department of Homeland Security Service 

Processing Center

Table 7: Case Backlog, Receipts, Completions, Changes of Venue or Transfers, and Caseload by Immigration Court, Fiscal 

Year 2013

Court name

Case 

backlog

New case 

receipts

Other case 

receipts

Case 

completions

Change of 

venue or 

transfer

Total annual 

caseload 

Adelanto, California 1,156 3,228 1,016 2,397 1,979 5,400

Arlington, Virginia 10,950 5,930 4,862 5,528 2,308 21,742

Atlanta, Georgia 9,519 3,518 2,929 3,881 803 15,966

Aurora, Colorado 342 2,077 225 1,388 1,005 2,644

Baltimore, Maryland 5,525 1,881 2,663 4,067 340 10,069

Batavia, New York* 171 727 151 484 449 1,049

Bloomington (St. Paul), Minnesota 3,330 2,181 969 2,859 494 6,480

Boston, Massachusetts 9,972 3,080 3,291 5,657 1,198 16,343

Buffalo, New York 2,419 819 645 954 557 3,883

Charlotte, North Carolina 4,816 2,129 1,859 4,246 209 8,804

Chicago, Illinois 18,723 8,673 3,622 8,167 4,008 31,018

Cleveland, Ohio 4,511 2,093 1,260 2,227 709 7,864
Appendix II: Immigration Court Case Backlog, 

Case Receipts, and Case Completions, Fiscal 

Years 2012 through 2015

Page 115 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Court name

Case 

backlog

New case 

receipts

Other case 

receipts

Case 

completions

Change of 

venue or 

transfer

Total annual 

caseload 

Dallas, Texas 7,152 4,823 3,007 6,903 1,670 14,982

Denver, Colorado 7,512 1,119 1,665 2,619 353 10,296

Detroit, Michigan 2,878 2,246 873 1,990 705 5,997

El Paso, Texas* 531 3,408 174 2,404 1,230 4,113

El Paso, Texas 6,520 2,765 1,797 2,012 1,906 11,082

Elizabeth Detention Center, New 

Jersey

329 2,088 211 978 1,292 2,628

Eloy, Arizona 1,176 5,738 384 2,649 3,305 7,298

Fishkill, New York 165 187 34 204 51 386

Florence, Arizona* 791 4,775 218 1,471 3,100 5,784

Guaynabo (San Juan), Puerto Rico 439 472 147 615 207 1,058

Harlingen, Texas 3,813 8,570 3,657 2,047 5,924 16,040

Hartford, Connecticut 1,583 814 738 1,245 114 3,135

Honolulu, Hawaii 331 238 201 487 82 770

Houston, Texas* 1,524 8,582 1,621 6,014 4,085 11,727

Houston, Texas 12,687 5,905 5,981 2,728 4,188 24,573

Imperial, California 1,099 965 521 873 499 2,585

Kansas City, Missouri 3,830 1,553 986 2,368 603 6,369

Krome North, Florida* 1,022 5,258 574 3,451 2,618 6,854

Las Vegas, Nevada 3,675 1,641 720 2,015 219 6,036

Los Angeles, California 53,950 12,844 8,969 20,629 4,598 75,763

Los Fresnos (Port Isabel), Texas* 345 4,406 307 1,442 2,978 5,058

Memphis, Tennessee 6,364 1,474 1,807 2,638 351 9,645

Miami, Florida 12,440 5,473 5,314 7,477 1,496 23,227

New Orleans, Louisiana 3,750 435 2,978 834 1,012 7,163

New York City, New York 45,954 12,118 9,615 16,755 1,937 67,687

Newark, New Jersey 11,863 3,926 3,970 4,219 689 19,759

Oakdale Federal Detention Center, 

Louisiana

575 5,555 968 3,632 2,723 7,098

Omaha, Nebraska 5,987 1,576 1,168 2,383 741 8,731

Orlando, Florida 5,872 2,341 2,235 4,264 429 10,448

Otay Mesa, California 337 1,554 155 979 621 2,046

Pearsall, Texas 418 5,051 281 1,942 3,182 5,750

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 5,007 1,038 1,644 2,190 410 7,689

Phoenix, Arizona 12,081 4,284 2,134 2,603 3,133 18,499

Portland, Oregon 3,186 672 849 1,550 284 4,707
Appendix II: Immigration Court Case Backlog, 

Case Receipts, and Case Completions, Fiscal 

Years 2012 through 2015

Page 116 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Court name

Case 

backlog

New case 

receipts

Other case 

receipts

Case 

completions

Change of 

venue or 

transfer

Total annual 

caseload 

Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands 67 81 19 129 3 167

Salt Lake City, Utah 1,366 1,076 273 1,185 57 2,715

San Antonio, Texas 10,345 11,172 7,421 5,902 8,234 28,938

San Diego, California 4,626 1,924 1,051 3,094 1,127 7,601

San Francisco, California 20,676 8,088 5,122 7,885 2,461 33,886

Seattle, Washington 5,483 1,145 1,704 2,775 632 8,332

Stewart Detention Facility, Georgia 800 6,043 227 6,020 704 7,070

Tacoma, Washington 951 3,670 271 2,149 1,783 4,892

Tucson, Arizona 1,687 675 572 846 152 2,934

Ulster, New York 185 299 73 291 78 557

Varick, New York* 785 1,402 285 1,202 714 2,472

York, Pennsylvania 510 3,538 566 2,075 1,988 4,614

All 344,101 199,343 106,979 192,018 88,727 650,423

Source: GAO analysis of Executive Office for Immigration Review data. | GAO-17-438

Note: Total caseload excludes changes of venue or transfer.

*Indicates an immigration court co-located with a Department of Homeland Security Service 

Processing Center

Table 8: Case Backlog, Receipts, Completions, Changes of Venue or Transfers, and Caseload by Immigration Court, Fiscal 

Year 2014

Court name

Case 

backlog

New case 

receipts

Other case 

receipts

Case 

completions

Change of 

venue or 

transfer

Total annual 

caseload 

Adelanto, California 1,024 3,275 811 2,382 1,971 5,110

Arlington, Virginia 13,906 9,238 6,019 4,984 2,469 29,163

Atlanta, Georgia 11,282 4,106 2,752 3,828 662 18,140

Aurora, Colorado 251 1,966 140 1,044 1,126 2,357

Baltimore, Maryland 5,662 3,972 3,360 3,688 417 12,994

Batavia, New York* 116 1,622 134 617 1,082 1,872

Bloomington (St. Paul), Minnesota 3,127 2,318 1,101 2,500 544 6,546

Boston, Massachusetts 9,488 3,873 3,832 4,319 1,603 17,193

Buffalo, New York 2,372 1,177 1,188 804 609 4,737

Charlotte, North Carolina 4,349 4,672 2,136 5,317 260 11,157

Chicago, Illinois 18,843 8,512 4,389 6,757 6,533 31,744

Cleveland, Ohio 4,928 2,145 1,266 1,962 643 8,339

Dallas, Texas 6,409 7,925 3,754 7,414 2,233 18,088
Appendix II: Immigration Court Case Backlog, 

Case Receipts, and Case Completions, Fiscal 

Years 2012 through 2015

Page 117 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Court name

Case 

backlog

New case 

receipts

Other case 

receipts

Case 

completions

Change of 

venue or 

transfer

Total annual 

caseload 

Denver, Colorado 7,324 2,409 1,590 2,332 481 11,323

Detroit, Michigan 3,302 2,379 1,074 1,617 1,214 6,755

El Paso, Texas* 479 3,389 165 2,652 1,032 4,033

El Paso, Texas 7,164 2,491 1,450 2,202 1,710 11,105

Elizabeth Detention Center, 

New Jersey

358 3,068 180 867 2,332 3,606

Eloy, Arizona 1,344 4,887 295 2,286 3,128 6,526

Fishkill, New York 131 159 36 147 44 326

Florence, Arizona* 1,213 4,103 198 1,682 3,292 5,514

Guaynabo (San Juan), Puerto Rico 236 393 100 359 118 729

Harlingen, Texas 8,069 9,799 4,538 2,197 10,902 22,406

Hartford, Connecticut 1,776 1,126 1,018 1,219 364 3,920

Honolulu, Hawaii 201 235 177 339 45 613

Houston, Texas* 1,628 8,870 1,115 6,055 3,793 11,613

Houston, Texas 17,657 14,032 7,214 2,913 6,738 38,903

Imperial, California 1,213 1,227 845 818 808 3,285

Kansas City, Missouri 3,398 1,929 1,031 2,044 531 6,358

Krome North, Florida* 785 5,540 451 3,265 2,930 6,776

Las Vegas, Nevada 3,802 1,776 833 1,999 359 6,411

Los Angeles, California 50,536 14,925 9,031 17,752 4,099 74,492

Los Fresnos (Port Isabel), Texas* 638 6,377 268 2,992 3,819 7,283

Memphis, Tennessee 6,656 3,038 2,632 2,987 829 12,326

Miami, Florida 14,254 7,630 5,817 8,591 1,008 27,701

New Orleans, Louisiana 5,317 1,936 3,090 1,023 1,270 10,343

New York City, New York 48,995 15,500 11,250 16,471 2,750 75,745

Newark, New Jersey 14,851 4,128 5,462 3,473 1,108 24,441

Oakdale Federal Detention Center, 

Louisiana

743 4,501 449 3,115 2,097 5,693

Omaha, Nebraska 5,607 1,732 1,293 2,461 739 8,632

Orlando, Florida 5,755 2,876 2,435 4,392 535 11,066

Otay Mesa, California 446 2,012 158 999 1,166 2,616

Pearsall, Texas 626 4,954 269 2,212 2,688 5,849

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 5,089 1,869 1,799 2,131 1,157 8,757

Phoenix, Arizona 12,763 2,849 2,054 3,868 2,339 17,666

Portland, Oregon 2,873 866 717 1,447 344 4,456

Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands 35 20 22 57 3 77
Appendix II: Immigration Court Case Backlog, 

Case Receipts, and Case Completions, Fiscal 

Years 2012 through 2015

Page 118 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Court name

Case 

backlog

New case 

receipts

Other case 

receipts

Case 

completions

Change of 

venue or 

transfer

Total annual 

caseload 

Salt Lake City, Utah 1,473 1,406 317 1,225 247 3,196

San Antonio, Texas 14,802 11,889 8,265 4,675 9,745 34,956

San Diego, California 3,380 1,645 1,384 2,419 1,009 6,409

San Francisco, California 23,540 9,883 5,809 8,314 2,713 39,232

Seattle, Washington 4,925 1,317 1,697 2,394 632 7,939

Stewart Detention Facility, Georgia 346 5,053 233 4,650 548 5,632

Tacoma, Washington 960 3,678 222 2,102 1,847 4,860

Tucson, Arizona 1,936 658 464 1,182 167 3,058

Ulster, New York 188 266 48 277 83 502

Varick, New York* 556 1,341 283 1,139 464 2,180

York, Pennsylvania 551 3,388 448 1,814 2,025 4,387

All 369,678 238,350 119,108 184,771 105,404 727,136

Source: GAO analysis of Executive Office for Immigration Review data. | GAO-17-438

Note: Total caseload excludes changes of venue or transfer.

*Indicates an immigration court co-located with a Department of Homeland Security Service 

Processing Center

Table 9: Case Backlog, Receipts, Completions, Changes of Venue or Transfers, and Caseload by Immigration Court, Fiscal 

Year 2015

Court name

Case 

backlog

New case 

receipts

Other case 

receipts

Case 

completions

Change of 

venue or 

transfer

Total annual 

caseload 

Adelanto, California 757 3,326 505 2,257 1,357 4,588

Arlington, Virginia 21,710 7,143 6,068 5,989 4,264 34,921

Atlanta, Georgia 13,650 3,696 2,786 6,782 803 20,132

Aurora, Colorado 187 1,661 189 1,056 768 2,037

Baltimore, Maryland 8,889 5,861 2,654 4,438 605 17,404

Batavia, New York* 173 1,269 122 562 817 1,564

Bloomington (St. Paul), Minnesota 3,502 1,808 1,356 2,452 658 6,666

Boston, Massachusetts 11,271 3,997 3,406 4,717 1,239 18,674

Buffalo, New York 3,324 252 730 981 979 4,306

Charlotte, North Carolina 5,580 3,936 1,630 5,277 565 11,146

Chicago, Illinois 18,454 7,160 3,817 6,176 3,624 29,431

Cleveland, Ohio 5,734 2,030 1,044 2,183 602 8,808

Dallas, Texas 8,441 7,806 3,327 9,489 2,375 19,574

Denver, Colorado 8,510 2,332 1,372 1,386 2,158 12,214
Appendix II: Immigration Court Case Backlog, 

Case Receipts, and Case Completions, Fiscal 

Years 2012 through 2015

Page 119 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Court name

Case 

backlog

New case 

receipts

Other case 

receipts

Case 

completions

Change of 

venue or 

transfer

Total annual 

caseload 

Detroit, Michigan 3,924 1,459 702 1,676 528 6,085

El Paso, Texas* 349 2,927 138 2,137 804 3,414

El Paso, Texas 7,193 1,115 983 2,342 1,105 9,291

Elizabeth Detention Center, New 

Jersey

407 1,733 469 739 1,310 2,609

Eloy, Arizona 1,112 4,174 420 2,174 2,362 5,706

Fishkill, New York 135 104 41 121 49 280

Florence, Arizona* 540 2,777 164 1,126 1,622 3,481

Guaynabo (San Juan), Puerto Rico 252 486 115 318 359 853

Harlingen, Texas 9,307 1,505 2,506 2,607 5,514 13,318

Hartford, Connecticut 2,337 941 864 1,673 449 4,142

Honolulu, Hawaii 229 231 271 441 32 731

Houston, Texas* 1,765 5,807 836 4,581 2,746 8,408

Houston, Texas 29,252 7,073 5,526 6,088 2,414 41,851

Imperial, California 1,659 1,749 1,262 768 1,445 4,670

Kansas City, Missouri 3,783 1,813 955 1,764 519 6,551

Krome North, Florida* 581 3,523 315 2,364 1,253 4,419

Las Vegas, Nevada 4,053 1,504 821 2,029 328 6,378

Los Angeles, California 52,641 13,635 9,197 20,793 3,879 75,473

Los Fresnos (Port Isabel), Texas* 472 3,859 146 2,278 1,979 4,477

Memphis, Tennessee 8,510 3,179 2,889 4,009 1,153 14,578

Miami, Florida 18,102 9,497 4,929 8,866 3,127 32,528

New Orleans, Louisiana 8,050 2,473 2,684 3,303 2,833 13,207

New York City, New York 56,524 15,334 9,898 17,730 1,530 81,756

Newark, New Jersey 19,860 5,118 4,348 3,476 1,542 29,326

Oakdale Federal Detention Center, 

Louisiana

481 4,702 438 2,897 2,068 5,621

Omaha, Nebraska 5,432 1,673 1,311 2,492 629 8,416

Orlando, Florida 6,139 3,061 1,973 5,483 595 11,173

Otay Mesa, California 451 1,747 165 914 970 2,363

Pearsall, Texas 949 5,799 216 2,323 2,921 6,964

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 5,469 1,863 1,575 2,548 637 8,907

Phoenix, Arizona 11,459 1,728 1,762 4,114 970 14,949

Portland, Oregon 2,665 1,238 894 1,392 280 4,797

Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands 17 15 12 39 0 44

Salt Lake City, Utah 1,724 1,043 540 1,373 409 3,307
Appendix II: Immigration Court Case Backlog, 

Case Receipts, and Case Completions, Fiscal 

Years 2012 through 2015

Page 120 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Court name

Case 

backlog

New case 

receipts

Other case 

receipts

Case 

completions

Change of 

venue or 

transfer

Total annual 

caseload 

San Antonio, Texas 20,536 8,048 8,495 3,686 10,496 37,079

San Diego, California 2,981 2,173 1,328 2,233 995 6,482

San Francisco, California 28,205 10,727 6,258 10,619 3,258 45,190

Seattle, Washington 4,913 2,741 1,686 2,343 411 9,340

Stewart Detention Facility, Georgia 434 4,209 182 3,894 424 4,825

Tacoma, Washington 911 2,913 161 1,640 1,195 3,985

Tucson, Arizona 1,709 533 345 1,324 164 2,587

Ulster, New York 142 191 51 189 69 384

Varick, New York* 577 1,057 281 870 494 1,915

York, Pennsylvania 548 2,469 432 1,773 1,255 3,449

All 436,961 202,223 107,590 199,294 87,936 746,774

Source: GAO analysis of Executive Office for Immigration Review data. | GAO-17-438

Note: Total caseload excludes changes of venue or transfer.

*Indicates an immigration court co-located with a Department of Homeland Security Service 

Processing Center.
Appendix III: Immigration Court Proceedings 

Continuances, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015

Page 121 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Judges may continue a case—issue a temporary adjournment of case 

proceedings until a different day or time—for a variety of reasons, either 

at their own instance or, for good cause shown by the respondent or the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS).1 For example, an immigration 

judge has discretionary authority to grant a motion for continuance to 

allow respondents to obtain legal representation or DHS to complete 

required background investigations and security checks.2 The Executive 

Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) tracks the extent to which judges 

issue continuances and reasons for continuances within its case 

management system. EOIR categorizes reasons for case continuances 

into approximately 70 different categories, including:

• Respondent-related continuances, such as illness of a respondent or 

their witness or attorney;

• DHS-related continuances, such as the need for more time to prepare 

for a case;

• Immigration judge–related continuances, such as unplanned leave or 

insufficient time to complete a hearing; and

• Operational continuances, such as a lack of a foreign language 

interpreter, a video- teleconference (VTC) malfunction, or to allow a 

priority case to be heard instead.

Table 10 provides the percentage of completed immigration court cases 

by the number of continuances for fiscal years 2006 through 2015, and 

table 11 provides the average days to case completion by number of 

continuances for fiscal years 2006 through 2015. Table 12 represents the 

number of continuances by overall category for each year, as well the 

percentage of total continuances and the percentage change of each 

category.

 1

8 C.F.R. § 1240.6.

2

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. See also Aliens and Nationality; Rules of Procedure for 

Proceedings Before Immigration Judges, 52 Fed. Reg. 2931 (Jan. 29, 1987). Immigration 

judges cannot grant applications for relief subject to identity, law enforcement, or security 

investigations or examinations until after DHS has completed, and reported to the 

immigration judge any relevant information from, the appropriate background 

investigations and security checks. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(g).

Appendix III: Immigration Court Proceedings 

Continuances, Fiscal Years 2006 through

2015
Appendix III: Immigration Court Proceedings 

Continuances, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015

Page 122 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Additionally, the following tables provide an overview of immigration 

judges’ use of continuances from fiscal years 2006 through 2015:

• Table 13 represents the number of respondent-related continuance

reasons, the percentage of total continuances, and the percentage 

change of each continuance reason.

• Table 14 represents the number of DHS-related continuance reasons, 

the percentage of total continuances, and the percentage change of 

each continuance reason.

• Table 15 represents the number of immigration judge-related 

continuance reasons, the percentage of total continuances, and the 

percentage change of each continuance reason.

• Table 16 represents the number of operational-related continuance 

reasons, the percentage of total continuances, and the percent 

change of each continuance reason.

Table 10: Percentage of Completed Immigration Court Cases by Number of Continuances, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Percentage of completed cases with 

no continuances

64 60 63 62 57 52 44 34 36 32

Percentage of completed cases with 

one continuance

13 14 13 14 15 15 16 17 19 21

Percentage of completed cases with 

two continuances

8 9 8 7 9 10 11 13 14 16

Percentage of completed cases with 

three continuances

6 6 5 5 6 7 8 10 10 11

Percentage of completed cases with 

four or more continuances

9 11 11 11 14 16 21 25 21 20

Total number of completed cases 181,130 162,771 174,985 187,012 180,398 177,907 156,109 139,177 140,186 155,858

Source: GAO analysis of Executive Office for Immigration Review data. | GAO-17-438

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
Appendix III: Immigration Court Proceedings 

Continuances, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015

Page 123 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Table 11: Average Days to Complete Cases by the Number of Continuances, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015

Number of continuances 

before case completion 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

No continuances 49 43 28 29 39 49 65 115 118 175

One continuance 171 172 149 128 160 184 228 296 305 315

Two continuances 314 285 273 260 286 302 356 430 468 464

Three continuances 413 370 360 359 382 402 473 534 594 576

Four or more continuances 615 564 598 652 698 712 807 917 959 929

Source: GAO analysis of Executive Office for Immigration Review data. | GAO-17-438
Appendix III: Immigration Court Proceedings Continuances, Fiscal 

Years 2006 through 2015

Page 124 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Table 12: Continuances by Category, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015

Continuance 

Category

Fiscal Year

Category 

total

Percentage 

of total

Percentage 

change, fiscal 

years 2006 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 through 2015

Respondentrelated214,232 212,313 217,842 224,528 250,360 261,249 282,543 295,686 245,089 252,317 2,456,159 66 18

Immigration 

judge-related

25,337 31,156 38,762 50,217 56,344 52,157 49,213 43,678 29,999 24,770 401,633 11 -2

Department of 

Homeland 

Security-related

46,790 41,025 39,822 39,454 46,426 52,690 61,412 72,008 67,479 71,966 539,072 14 54

Operationalrelated35,248 25,776 25,738 23,655 25,860 31,722 37,889 42,302 42,665 46,839 337,694 9 33

Total 

continuances

321,607 310,270 322,164 337,854 378,990 397,818 431,057 453,674 385,232 395,892 3,734,558 100 23

Source: GAO analysis of Executive Office for Immigration Review data. | GAO-17-438
Appendix III: Immigration Court Proceedings Continuances, Fiscal 

Years 2006 through 2015

Page 125 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Table 13: Respondent-Related Continuance Reasons, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015

Continuance 

Reason

Fiscal Year

Category 

total

Percentage

of total

Percentage 

change, 

fiscal 

years 2006 

through 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015

Respondent to seek 

representation

51,269 50,126 46,793 45,484 49,607 51,151 52,922 54,910 50,887 57,427 510,576 21 12

Preparation—

respondent or

respondent’s legal 

representativea

37,899 40,710 40,251 40,770 48,623 54,104 58,947 62,722 51,633 52,376 488,035 20 38

Department of 

Homeland Security 

(DHS) adjudication 

of respondentinitiated petitionb

17,905 20,681 26,897 32,732 40,752 42,997 44,349 43,355 30,769 26,256 326,693 13 47

Respondent or 

respondent’s legal 

representative 

request for 

continuance for 

other reason

30,952 25,587 22,318 21,218 24,641 26,415 31,398 36,702 30,148 30,423 279,802 11 -2

Preparation of

records or biometrics 

check or overseas 

investigation by 

respondent

9,764 17,166 28,797 33,463 35,064 33,641 31,272 24,746 14,645 11,332 239,890 10 16

Respondent to file 

other applicationc 10,046 10,409 11,080 11,519 14,046 15,551 19,334 22,434 19,449 17,781 151,649 6 77

Respondent to file 

for asylum in 

immigration court

9,997 10,132 8,386 7,217 7,366 9,366 11,102 12,627 15,061 19,082 110,336 4 91
Appendix III: Immigration Court Proceedings Continuances, Fiscal 

Years 2006 through 2015

Page 126 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Continuance 

Reason

Fiscal Year

Category 

total

Percentage

of total

Percentage 

change, 

fiscal 

years 2006 

through 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015

Respondent 

or legal 

representative 

rejected earliest 

possible asylum 

hearing

21,213 15,425 12,501 9,754 7,678 6,192 6,197 6,368 5,478 5,010 95,816 4 -76

No-show by 

respondent or 

respondent’s legal 

representative

6,364 6,138 5,252 5,272 5,771 6,539 6,545 7,281 6,565 11,91

7

67,644 3 87

Supplement asylum 

application

6,532 5,180 4,246 3,390 3,451 3,195 4,213 4,028 2,680 3,515 40,430 2 -46

Joint request to 

continue by both 

parties

1,319 1,618 1,360 985 949 1,401 5,700 8,789 8,615 8,148 38,884 2 518

Asylum application 

withdrawn or reset 

for other issues

6,972 4,144 2,661 2,717 2,305 2,086 2,386 2,999 2,757 2,564 31,591 1 -63

Consolidation with 

family memberd 906 1152 2855 5597 4041 3278 2917 2928 1951 2435 28,060 1 169

Contested charges 1,189 1,578 1,832 2,165 2,945 2,532 2,576 2,912 2,266 2,069 22,064 1 74

Illness of 

respondent, legal 

representative, or 

witness

950 929 1080 1018 1513 1356 1618 1842 1433 1440 13,179 1 52

Respondent claim to 

U.S. citizenship

360 541 762 681 735 648 638 628 422 347 5,762 0 -4
Appendix III: Immigration Court Proceedings Continuances, Fiscal 

Years 2006 through 2015

Page 127 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Continuance 

Reason

Fiscal Year

Category 

total

Percentage

of total

Percentage 

change, 

fiscal 

years 2006 

through 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015

Respondent request 

for an in-person 

hearing

527 723 698 484 814 771 374 370 307 169 5,237 0 -68

Respondent 

requested forensic 

analysis

72 69 50 26 39 22 21 18 9 17 343 0 -76

DHS vertical 

prosecution date not 

accommodatede

1 0 17 30 15 5 14 16 9 4 111 0 300

Jurisdiction rests 

with Board of 

Immigration Appeals

3 6 8 6 12 6 20 12 6 5 84 0 67

Total respondentrelated 

continuances

214,240 212,314 217,844 224,528 250,367 261,256 282,543 295,687 245,090 252,3

17

2,456,186 100 18

Source: GAO analysis of Executive Office for Immigration Review data. | GAO-17-438

a

These cases were continued to allow the respondent or respondent’s legal representative time to prepare the case, including 

allowing time to file an additional relief application not initially requested or take witness testimony outside of a corrections 

facility (e.g., at the immigration court for a witness in a cancellation of removal hearing).

b

These cases were continued to allow for the adjudication of a petition or application pending with DHS. This includes, but is 

not limited to: petitions to remove conditions on residence (I-751); petitions of a refugee relative (I-730), and pending 

naturalization of petitioning relative, as well applications for adjustment to lawful permanent residency under the Cuban 

Refugee Adjustment Act of November 2, 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161, as amended.

c

These cases were continued to allow the respondent to submit an additional application for relief beyond that already 

submitted—i.e., a respondent who has previously applied for asylum and, at a hearing on the asylum application, requests time 

in which to prepare and submit an application for cancellation of removal relief.

d

These cases were continued to allow the immigration court to consolidate a family under a single case.

e

According to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, this code was established for a pilot study.
Appendix III: Immigration Court Proceedings Continuances, Fiscal 

Years 2006 through 2015

Page 128 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Table 14: Department of Homeland Security (DHS)-Related Continuance Reasons, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015

Continuance 

Reason

Fiscal Year

Category

total

Percentage

of total

Percentage 

change, fiscal 

years 2006 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 through 2015

DHS to provide 

biometrics 

checka

8,409 11,894 17,903 27,147 31,696 28,184 26,366 22,157 14,145 10,618 198,519 49 26

Preparation—

DHSb 6,359 6,681 6,415 6,835 7,963 7,855 8,565 8,591 6,182 5,323 70,769 18 -16

DHS or DHS 

administrative 

file not available 

for hearing

2,726 2,473 2,595 2,300 2,397 2,454 2,383 2,413 2,020 2,243 24,004 6 -18

DHS 

investigation

2,286 3,088 3,894 4,724 4,826 5,018 4,025 2,984 1,587 1,242 33,674 8 -46

DHS did not 

present a 

detained 

respondent or 

inmate to a 

scheduled 

hearing 

2,396 3,088 3,685 3,382 2,191 2,090 1,589 1,383 1,359 1,378 22,541 6 -42

Respondent 

released from 

DHS or 

corrections 

custodyc

795 1,101 1,515 1,777 1,886 1,935 1,679 1,809 1,506 1354 15,357 4 70

DHS forensic 

analysis

669 938 1,151 1,818 2,853 2,516 2,052 1,475 818 402 14,692 4 -40
Appendix III: Immigration Court Proceedings Continuances, Fiscal 

Years 2006 through 2015

Page 129 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Continuance 

Reason

Fiscal Year

Category

total

Percentage

of total

Percentage 

change, fiscal 

years 2006 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 through 2015

DHS application 

process—

respondent in 

DHS or 

corrections 

custodyd

525 376 268 220 378 419 598 767 578 973 5,102 1 85

New charge filed 

by DHS

420 388 513 557 609 614 657 593 458 379 5,188 1 -10

Detained 

respondent is 

quarantined due 

to outbreak of 

illness in DHS 

detention facility

143 469 308 818 902 413 325 248 205 199 4,030 1 39

DHS requested 

a certification of 

the respondent’s 

mental 

competency

78 81 65 42 56 169 469 699 805 390 2,854 1 400

Juvenile home 

study required 

for final 

adjudication of 

casee

411 430 261 193 132 117 183 193 111 78 2,109 1 -81

Cooperating 

witness/law 

enforcementf

76 99 97 152 237 189 98 105 54 45 1,152 0 -41

Vertical 

prosecution—

DHS cause 

delayg

0 1 42 150 133 120 142 144 95 94 921 0 -
Appendix III: Immigration Court Proceedings Continuances, Fiscal 

Years 2006 through 2015

Page 130 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Continuance 

Reason

Fiscal Year

Category

total

Percentage

of total

Percentage 

change, fiscal 

years 2006 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 through 2015

DHS vertical 

prosecution date 

not 

accommodated

0 0 3 63 13 21 42 65 49 24 280 0 -

DHS request for 

an in-person 

hearing

45 49 49 39 73 50 40 52 27 28 452 0 -38

Total DHSrelated 

continuances

25,338 31,156 38,764 50,217 56,345 52,164 49,213 43,678 29,999 24,770 401,644 100 -2

Source: GAO analysis of Executive Office for Immigration Review data. | GAO-17-438

a

These cases were continued to allow DHS to complete biometrics checks, including required database and fingerprint checks.

b

These cases were continued to allow DHS time for case preparation or to cover other DHS-requested continuances for 

reasons not otherwise covered on this table.

c

These cases were continued from a detained calendar to a non-detained calendar because the respondent was released from 

DHS custody or other incarceration.

d

These cases were continued to allow for the adjudication of a DHS-initiated application pending with DHS when the 

respondent is held in DHS or corrections custody.

e

These cases were continued to allow the Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement to investigate potential 

sponsors for unaccompanied alien children.

f

These cases were continued because the respondent is a cooperating witness or law enforcement has an interest in the 

respondent.

g

According to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, this code was established for a pilot study.
Appendix III: Immigration Court Proceedings Continuances, Fiscal 

Years 2006 through 2015

Page 131 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Table 15: Immigration Judge-Related Continuance Reasons, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015

Continuance 

Reason

Fiscal Year

Category

total

Percentage

of total

Percentage

change, fiscal 

years 2006 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 through 2015

Master calendar to individual 

calendar—merits hearinga 32,312 26,631 24,317 23,022 24,682 29,246 35,043 43,714 43,302 45,280 327,549 61 40

Unplanned immigration judge 

leave- sick or annual leave

7,646 7,154 7,989 7,623 9,746 10,422 12,580 14,052 12,554 14,911 104,677 19 95

Unplanned immigration judge 

leave—detail or other 

assignment

3,296 3,436 4,205 4,978 7,341 7,290 7,591 7,552 6,255 6,983 58,927 11 112

Insufficient time to complete 

hearingb 3,347 3,549 3,022 3,583 4,368 5,418 5,823 6,240 5,031 4,499 44,880 8 34

Immigration judge request for 

an in-person hearing

117 196 211 184 197 187 234 289 204 172 1,991 0 47

Reasonable Cause to Special 

Circumstances merits hearingc 5 9 6 9 15 33 39 27 36 25 204 0 400
Appendix III: Immigration Court Proceedings Continuances, Fiscal 

Years 2006 through 2015

Page 132 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Continuance 

Reason

Fiscal Year

Category

total

Percentage

of total

Percentage

change, fiscal 

years 2006 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 through 2015

Interpreter appeared but 

immigration judge rejected

67 50 72 55 77 94 102 134 97 96 844 0 43

Total immigration judgerelated continuances46,790 41,025 39,822 39,454 46,426 52,690 61,412 72,008 67,479 71,966 539,072 100 54

Source: GAO analysis of Executive Office for Immigration Review data. | GAO-17-438

a

These cases were continued from a master calendar to an individual calendar for a merits hearing, usually allowing time to file 

and process applications for relief before the hearing on the merits.

b

These cases were continued because the case could not be completed in the time allotted, including, among other reasons, 

the need for additional time for the immigration judge to prepare and deliver the oral decision at the scheduled hearing; to hear 

the testimony of additional witnesses, such as the arresting officer; other key witnesses not present at the hearing; or to take 

and present a deposition.

c

These cases were continued from a Reasonable Cause to a Special Circumstances merits hearing in a continued detention 

review case, meaning that a final decision by the immigration judge or Board of Immigration Appeals determined that the 

Department of Homeland Security met the burden to show reasonable cause to proceed with a merits hearing.
Appendix III: Immigration Court Proceedings Continuances, Fiscal 

Years 2006 through 2015

Page 133 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Table 16: Operational-Related Continuance Reasons, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015

Continuance 

Reason

Fiscal Year

Category

total

Percentage

of total

Percentage change, 

fiscal years 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2006 through 2015

Other operational 

or security 

factorsa

9,140 9,485 13,349 12,632 15,068 19,904 22,296 24,019 21,142 22,715 169,750 50 149

Allow for 

scheduling of 

priority case

2,380 1,696 1,814 1,997 2,209 3,447 5,772 7,919 7,281 9,432 43,947 13 296

Case conversionb 20,087 10,935 5,668 2,998 1,866 1,083 781 486 104 45 44,053 13 -100

Hearing 

deliberately 

advancedc

250 741 1,765 2,986 3,372 3,605 4,355 4,094 3,308 2,979 27,455 8 1,092

Notice sent or 

served incorrectly

1,966 1,410 1,450 1,419 1,400 1,296 1,242 1,480 1,378 2,654 15,695 5 35

Interpreter not 

ordered

622 739 682 806 982 1,130 1,157 1,368 1,507 1,970 10,963 3 217

October 2013 

Government 

Shutdownd

- - - - - - 1 12 5,103 2,882 7,998 2 -

Case joined to 

lead—

hearing 

adjournede

- - 1 1 1 165 790 1,066 1,395 2,312 5,731 2 -

Concurrent 

application for 

relieff

23 16 7 12 19 19 229 538 446 643 1,952 1 2,696

Interpreter 

ordered but failed 

to appear 

321 327 389 398 325 472 458 442 378 391 3,901 1 22
Appendix III: Immigration Court Proceedings Continuances, Fiscal 

Years 2006 through 2015

Page 134 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Continuance 

Reason

Fiscal Year

Category

total

Percentage

of total

Percentage change, 

fiscal years 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2006 through 2015

Videoteleconference 

malfunction

192 244 507 322 552 453 450 431 312 303 3,766 1 58

State Department 

response not in 

fileg

13 23 48 36 40 46 75 53 49 60 443 0 362

Lack of 

interpreterh 254 160 56 48 24 11 2 3 1 559 0 -100

Forensic 

competency 

evaluationi

- - - - - - - - 18 55 73 0 -

Appointment of 

qualified 

representativej

- - - - - - - 1 15 54 70 0 -

Judicial 

competency 

evaluationk

- - - - - - - - - 62 62 0 -

Case severed 

from lead—

hearing 

adjournedl

- - 2 - 2 91 281 390 228 282 1,276 0 -

Total 

operationalrelated 

continuances

35,248 25,776 25,738 23,655 25,860 31,722 37,889 42,302 42,665 46,839 337,694 100 33

Source: GAO analysis of EOIR data. | GAO-17-438

Note: Cases with a continuance reason labelled “Data entry error” were omitted from this table as these represent errors and 

not represent case continuances. Additionally, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) uses the continuance 

reason “Immigration Judge completion prior to hearing” to indicate that a case was completed and therefore its use does not 

represent a case continuance.
Appendix III: Immigration Court Proceedings Continuances, Fiscal 

Years 2006 through 2015

Page 135 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

a

These cases were continued because of other operational problems for reasons not otherwise covered on this table. These 

reasons may include, but are not limited to, an inoperable recorder; weather or environmental factors; agendas changed by the

immigration court; immigration judge was replaced, resigned or retired; and a security risk related to anyone in the court.

b

These cases were continued to allow for the case file to be converted between EOIR’s old and new case management 

system.

c

These cases were continued because circumstances dictated that the hearing be moved forward. For example, this could 

occur if a non-detained respondent was arrested, subsequently needed to be placed on the detained docket, and, due to being 

placed on the detained docket, the hearing date is set earlier than the previous non-detained hearing date.

d

These cases were continued based on the October 2013 government shutdown.

e

These cases were continued because one respondent’s case was joined with another, a tool most often used for 

administrative ease and efficiency when two members a family are seeking relief based on the same claim.

f

These cases were continued because the respondent or the respondent’s legal representative filed an application for relief in 

addition to suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal.

g

This continuance reason is to be used only when an immigration judge requests a special case-specific opinion from the 

Department of State.

h

This continuance reason is no longer used. Instead, judges can record that an interpreter was ordered but failed to appear or 

that the court did not order an interpreter for the hearing.

i

These cases were continued because the immigration ordered that a qualified mental health professional assess the detained 

respondent’s mental health due to unresolved concerns as to a detained respondent’s mental competency.

j

These cases were continued because an immigration judge determined that a detained respondent was not competent to 

represent him- or herself and, accordingly, would be appointed a qualified representative at government expense.

k

These cases were continued because either the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement trial attorney or immigration 

judge determined that a competency evaluation of a detained respondent was necessary.

l

These cases were continued because, after two respondents’ cases were joined, it was determined that one respondent’s 

case should be severed, and heard separately from, the other.
Appendix IV: Additional Characteristics of 

Selected Court and Adjudicatory Systems and 

the Immigration Court System

Page 136 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Table 17 provides additional characteristics of selected court and 

adjudicatory systems exemplifying the restructuring scenarios proposed 

by experts and stakeholders and the current immigration courts and 

Board of Immigration Appeals.

Table 17: Additional Characteristics of Selected Systems Similar to Scenarios Proposed by Experts and Stakeholders and the 

Current Immigration Courts and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

Scenario

Court system 

independent of the 

executive branch

Administrative 

agency

Hybrid of independent 

court system and 

administrative agency

Immigration courts 

and the BIA

Selected court and 

adjudicatory systems 

exemplifying the 

proposed scenarios

U.S. Bankruptcy Courts Social Security 

Administration’s Office of 

Disability Adjudication and 

Review (ODAR)

Board of Veterans’

Appeals (BVA) and 

Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims 

(CAVC)

Not applicable

Type of court filing 

system (paper or 

electronic)

Electronic filing system Electronic filing system BVA and CAVC: Paper 

appeals to the BVA are 

scanned and uploaded 

into an electronic claims 

file

Paper-based system

Performance 

assessment 

for judges

All judges are subject to 

the Judicial Code of

Conduct, which includes 

the ethics rules that 

apply to federal judges 

and provides guidance 

on their performance of 

official duties and 

engagement in a variety 

of outside activities. An 

evaluation feedback 

program for bankruptcy 

judges provides 

feedback to the judges 

for the purpose of 

helping them improve 

and strengthen their 

performance.

Administrative law judges 

are not rated on their 

performance, but have 

benchmarks for selfassessing productivity.

BVA: Veterans law 

judges’ performance 

standards include a 

number of elements, 

including legal writing 

and analysis, timeliness

and productivity of 

decisions and other 

work assignments, case 

management, conduct 

of hearings, 

organizational 

cooperation and 

support, and customer 

satisfaction. 

Executive Office for 

Immigration Review (EOIR) 

assesses immigration court 

judges and BIA members 

using a performance plan 

that addresses three job 

elements: (1) legal ability, 

(2) professionalism, and (3) 

accountability for 

organizational results, 

which includes working 

towards achieving the goals 

and priorities set by the 

Office of the Chief 

Immigration Judge. EOIR 

also considers judge and 

BIA member progress 

towards meeting 

quantitative case 

completion goals.

Adversarial 

nature of 

proceedings 

A bankruptcy case may 

include adversary 

proceedings which are 

lawsuits arising in or 

related to the main case, 

commenced by filing a 

complaint with the court 

and other motions.

Non-adversarial. Non-adversarial at the 

BVA and adversarial 

before the CAVC.

Adversarial.

Appendix IV: Additional Characteristics of 

Selected Court and Adjudicatory Systems 

and the Immigration Court System
Appendix IV: Additional Characteristics of 

Selected Court and Adjudicatory Systems and 

the Immigration Court System

Page 137 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Scenario

Court system 

independent of the 

executive branch

Administrative 

agency

Hybrid of independent 

court system and 

administrative agency

Immigration courts 

and the BIA

Type of decision 

rendered (oral or 

written) 

Oral and written. Written. BVA and CAVC: 

Written.

Oral and written.

Workforce 

planning 

The Judicial 

Conference—the 

national policy-making 

body for the federal 

courts—assesses 

judgeship needs every 2 

years using weighted 

case metrics, number of 

cases, and the district

court size, among other 

factors.

ODAR uses the number of 

pending hearings, 

projections of future case 

receipts, and estimates of 

future productivity to 

determine the number of 

judges needed to achieve 

its target processing time of 

270 days. 

BVA: evaluates its 

requirements, such as 

desired timeframes for 

issuing decisions, and 

the resources on-hand 

and needed to meet 

these requirements.

CAVC: determines the 

number of judges it 

needs by assessing its 

and the BVA’s caseload 

because the CAVC 

needs to keep pace with 

the appeals generated 

by the BVA.

EOIR calculates its 

immigration judge staffing 

needs by dividing its entire 

projected caseload for the 

upcoming fiscal year by the 

average number of cases 

completed per immigration 

judge in the previous year.

Docket 

management

The U.S. Bankruptcy 

Code and the Federal 

Rules of Bankruptcy

Procedure establishes 

deadlines applicable 

throughout the case, 

including while it is 

pending, that dictate the 

management of the 

docket.

Offices assign and process 

the oldest hearing requests 

first, with some exceptions 

made for terminal illness 

and other critical cases. 

BVA: required by statute 

to consider and decide 

cases in order according 

to their place upon the 

docket, with certain 

exceptions, such as a 

serious illness and 

hardship on the part of 

the veteran; and to 

handle claims remanded 

from the CAVC 

expeditiously. The 

priority order in BVA 

appeals adjudication is 

based on the date the 

appeal was received by 

the VA (not the BVA). 

The BVA inventories all 

of its cases on a weekly 

basis to determine the 

oldest cases and 

assigns these cases first 

to the judges.

CAVC: The Clerk of 

Court and Chief Judge 

monitor the number of 

cases on each judge’s 

docket on a monthly 

basis to ensure that the 

case flow is maintained.

Uses case prioritization 

guidance to determine 

when cases should be 

scheduled.
Appendix IV: Additional Characteristics of 

Selected Court and Adjudicatory Systems and 

the Immigration Court System

Page 138 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Scenario

Court system 

independent of the 

executive branch

Administrative 

agency

Hybrid of independent 

court system and 

administrative agency

Immigration courts 

and the BIA

Location Regionally-based. Regionally-based. BVA: not regionallybased and any judge 

can conceivably review 

cases from any 

Veterans Affairs regional 

office.

CAVC: Centrallylocated.

Regionally-based.

Support staff for 

judges

The Bankruptcy Courts 

have a staffing policy 

that authorizes no more 

than two in-chamber staff 

per judge. 

ODAR’s target ratio of 

support personnel to judge 

is 4.5 support personnel 

per judge. 

BVA: tries to maintain a 

ratio of almost nine staff 

attorneys per judge and 

has approximately 120 

administrative support 

personnel who are not 

directly assigned to the 

judges.

CAVC: Each judge is 

authorized up to four law 

clerks and one 

administrative 

assistant.

a

EOIR’s target ratio is 3 

support personnel per 

immigration judge. 

Source: GAO analysis of expert, stakeholder, and federal agency information. | GAO-17-438

a

Per 38 U.S.C. § 7281(b), the judges of the Court may appoint law clerks and secretaries, in such 

numbers as the Court may approve, without regard to the provisions of title 5 governing appointments 

in the competitive service. Any such law clerk or secretary shall serve at the pleasure of the 

appointing judge.
Appendix V: Comments from Department of 

Justice

Page 139 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Appendix V: Comments from Department of 

Justice
Appendix V: Comments from Department of 

Justice

Page 140 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts
Appendix V: Comments from Department of 

Justice

Page 141 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts
Appendix V: Comments from Department of 

Justice

Page 142 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts
Appendix V: Comments from Department of 

Justice

Page 143 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts
Appendix V: Comments from Department of 

Justice

Page 144 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts
Appendix V: Comments from Department of 

Justice

Page 145 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 146 GAO-17-438 Immigration Courts

Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777 or GamblerR@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Taylor Matheson (Assistant 

Director), David Alexander, Ashley Davis, Kathleen Donovan, Juan 

Garcia, Michael Holland, Eric Hauswirth, Benjamin Licht, Grant Mallie, 

Sasan J. “Jon” Najmi, Robin Nye, Adam Vogt, and Hannah Weigle made 

key contributions to this report.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100404)
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 website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814,

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.