U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–274 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 112–936 

IMPROVING EFFICIENCY AND ENSURING JUSTICE 

IN THE IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 18, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–22 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking Member 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 18, 2011, 10:02 A.M. 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ............................... 3 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa, 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

WITNESSES 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 27 

Grisez, Karen T., Chair, Commission on Immigration, American Bar Association, Washington, DC ........................................................................................... 9 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Osuna, Juan P., Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC ............................................................ 4 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Wood, Hon. Julie Myers, President, ICS Consulting, LLC, Arlington, Virginia 7 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

QUESTIONS 

Questions submitted to Karen T. Grisez by: 

Senator Cornyn ................................................................................................. 59 

Senator Leahy ................................................................................................... 77 

Questions submitted to Juan P. Osuna by: 

Senator Cornyn ................................................................................................. 60 

Senator Feinstein ............................................................................................. 64 

Senator Grassley .............................................................................................. 67 

Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................................ 76 

Senator Leahy ................................................................................................... 79 

Senator Sessions ............................................................................................... 81 

Questions submitted to Hon. Julie Myers Wood by: 

Senator Cornyn ................................................................................................. 62 

Senator Grassley .............................................................................................. 75 

ANSWERS 

Responses of Karen T. Grisez to questions submitted by Senators Cornyn 

and Leahy ............................................................................................................. 83 

[Note: At the time of printing, the Committee had not received responses 

from Juan P. Osuna.] 

Responses of Hon. Julie Myers Wood to questions submitted by Senators 

Cornyn and Grassley ........................................................................................... 88 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Laura W. Murphy, Director, Washington Legislative Office, and Joanne Lin, Legislative Counsel, Washington, 

DC, statement ...................................................................................................... 96 

American Immigration Council (AIC), Washington, DC, statement ................... 113 
Page

IV 

American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................................... 103 

Appleseed, Chicago Appleseed, and Texas Appleseed, public policy law centers, Washington, DC, statement ........................................................................ 145 

Associated Press, April 5, 2011, article .................................................................. 129 

Associated Press, April 5, 2011, article .................................................................. 137 

Associated Press, April 11, 2011, article ................................................................ 139 

Benson, Lenni B., Professor, New York Law School, New York, New York, 

and Russell R. Wheeler, Brookings Institution and Governance Institute, 

Washington, D.C., statement .............................................................................. 154 

Constitution Project, The (TCP), Mason C. Clutter, Counsel, Rule of Law 

Program, Washington, DC, May 16, 2011, letter .............................................. 228 

Dubovoy, Hugo, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Chicago, Illinois, May 25, 2011, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 170 

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), Mark Hetfield, Senior Vice President, 

Policy and Programs, May 16, 2011, letter ........................................................ 159 

Human Rights First, statement ............................................................................. 164 

Human Rights Watch, statement ........................................................................... 172 

Katzmann Immigrant Representation Study Group and the Vera Institute 

of Justice, ‘‘The New York Immigrant Representation Study,’’ preliminary 

report ..................................................................................................................... 180

Kingsbury, Colby A., Partner, Baker & Daniels LLP, Chicago, Illinois, May 

16, 2011, letter ..................................................................................................... 182 

Law, Anna O., Associate Professor of Political Science, DePaul University, 

‘‘The Ninth Circuit’s Internal Adjudicative Procedures and Their Effect 

on Pro Se and Asylum Appeals,’’ abstract .......................................................... 119 

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS), Baltimore, Maryland, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 185 

McConnell, Gregory A., Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, Illinois, May 16, 

2011, letter ............................................................................................................ 189 

National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), San Francisco, California, statement .................................................................................................. 192 

National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), Mary Meg McCarthy, Executive 

Director, Chicago, Illinois, statement ................................................................. 204 

National Immigration Forum, statement .............................................................. 202 

New York Times, The, May 3, 2011, article .......................................................... 212 

Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), statement .................................................. 215 

Schrag, Philip G., Delaney Family Professor of Public Interest Law, and 

Andrew I. Schoenholtz, Visiting Professor of Law, Co-Directors, Center 

for Applied Legal Studies, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, 

DC, May 13, 2011, letter ..................................................................................... 219 

Tahirih Justice Center, Jeanne Smoot, JD, MALD, Director of Public Policy, 

Falls Church, Virginia, statement ...................................................................... 225 

University of Arizona, Nina Rabin, Co-Director, Immigration Law Clinic, 

and Director, Bacon Immigration Law & Policy Program, Tucson, Arizona, 

May 13, 2011, letter ............................................................................................. 232 

Vera Institute of Justice (Vera), New York, New York, statement ..................... 235 

Wheeler, Ellen M., Partner, Foley & Lardner LLP, Chicago, Illinois, May 

16, 2011, letter ..................................................................................................... 237 
(1) 

IMPROVING EFFICIENCY AND ENSURING JUSTICE IN THE IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2011 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., Room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Franken, Blumenthal, Grassley, and Cornyn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. I am going to make a short opening statement. 

I will put my whole statement in the record, and I want to ask 

each of the witnesses to put their statements in the record, but to 

summarize them orally so we can go to questions. 

It is an understatement to say that immigration in this Nation 

has led to fierce debate, but we have no comprehensive solution. I 

know President Bush tried. I agreed with President Bush on his efforts to develop a comprehensive immigration policy. 

Just a week ago, President Obama went to the border to renew 

the discussion, and he called for Congress to enact comprehensive 

reform. I do not in any way underestimate how difficult that would 

be, but I hope for the country that we can achieve comprehensive 

reform. 

The more we struggle to attract support on both sides of the aisle 

for such a solution, the current system continues to be hobbled by 

a complex immigration statute, and by overburdened immigration 

courts. Today we are going to take a look at the courts. 

Immigration courts have not attracted much attention in the immigration debate, but the decisions made by these judges carry a 

great deal of weight. For an asylum-seeker with a valid claim of 

persecution in her home country, denial of asylum may be tantamount to giving her a death sentence. 

Long delays in the immigration courts pose additional burdens. 

A successful petitioner may not be able to reunite with his or her 

family, or bring the children away from danger to the United 

States during the pendency of the case. 

In my home State, Vermont immigration and asylum advocates 

assist hundreds of immigrants and asylum-seekers each year. They 

work hard to overcome the challenges to winning a claim. 

Let me give you an example that I am concerned about. The Associated Press recently reported on an asylum-seeker who had been 
2 

jailed and tortured for supporting the political opposition in Cameroon. Her husband died behind bars because of his activism. Her 

brother and her mother were tortured. 

This woman, who fled and had to leave behind two sons and a 

20-month-old daughter, waited for 5 years for her case to be resolved by the immigration courts. Five years, and, of course, during 

that time, her children were separated from her. 

By the time she completed all the steps to bring her children to 

the United States, her daughter, who she had last seen as an infant, had reached the age of 10. 

The pace of justice in the immigration courts is too slow. Courts 

operate under the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or 

EOIR, within the Department of Justice. They have struggled for 

years under heavy caseloads, insufficient staffing, and technological 

weaknesses. 

The Federal circuit courts have excoriated immigration courts 

and the administrative appeals board for shoddy work, including 

denial of due process, bias against immigrants, and unreasoned 

opinions. 

In the past Administration, the hiring of immigration judges was 

politicized, something we all have acknowledged, with candidates 

vetted for political affiliation, voting records, and personal views on 

abortion. It had nothing to do with immigration. The candidates for 

immigration judge positions were not asked about their immigration expertise. 

The courts have come a long way since that point. This Administration revamped the personnel policies. They hired immigration 

judges with higher qualifications and a diversity of backgrounds. 

Clerks and support staff have been added. Training and technology have both improved. 

I want to commend our witness, Juan Osuna, the Director of 

EOIR, for his leadership in steering the ship onto a steady course. 

But now, new challenges have arisen that are not of the courts’ 

making. The heavy emphasis on enforcement by the Administration has led to a sharp increase in caseloads. At the same time, the 

Department of Justice faces budget cuts across the board. The Department can no longer hire judges to keep up with the caseload. 

The case backlog rose 44 percent from the end of Fiscal Year 

2008 to the end of the calendar year 2010. And so the example of 

the asylum-seeker from Cameroon has become all too typical. 

I called this hearing not to criticize the immigration courts, but 

to have a constructive discussion about what they can do to be improved, and to ask what the courts can do with current resources 

to increase efficiency and improve the quality of adjudication. How 

many new judges and more staff are needed to bring the case backlog under control? What innovative steps are being taken by nongovernmental entities, such as the New York Immigrant Representation Study, launched by Judge Robert Katzmann of the second 

circuit court of appeals? And, how can bar associations, law firms, 

and nonprofit organizations contribute? 

These challenges are not partisan or ideological. We all want the 

courts to operate fairly. We want them to serve the interests of justice. So I hope we will discuss how best to achieve these goals. 
3 

I am joined by the distinguished Ranking Member, Senator 

Cornyn of Texas, a man who, with both his judicial experience and 

just living in Texas, has a great deal of experience with immigration issues, and I yield to him. 

I will put my full statement in the record, and then we will go 

to statements from the witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. Well, thank you, Chairman Leahy, for holding 

today’s hearing, and, Senator Grassley, for allowing me to serve as 

the Ranking Member during the hearing. 

As a former State court judge and attorney general, I am very 

familiar with the heavy workloads that judges and prosecutors and 

defense lawyers carry day-by-day, and it is a great privilege, I can 

tell you, to serve as a judge and a great honor to decide cases and 

interpret the laws passed by Congress, but there is no place, in my 

view, for making it up as you go along. And we need to make sure 

we have immigration courts that are enforcing the law as written 

by Congress and not becoming policymakers unto themselves. 

In previous immigration debates, we have focused on border security, interior enforcement, temporary worker programs, and what 

we need to do with the current population that is here without the 

appropriate legal visas. However, we have not had an in-depth discussion about restructuring and reform of the immigration court 

system itself. 

My staff and I are working on a proposed bill based, in part, 

upon some of the recommendations that have been made by the 

ABA and others, and, of course, we will look to learn from you here 

today about other ways that we can improve the legislation and 

reach out to colleagues and try to get good bipartisan support. 

Immigration courts are administrative tribunals under the jurisdiction of the attorney general and the Department of Justice. The 

effectiveness and efficiency of the court depends on Department 

policy and procedures. It also depends on the resources available 

to the Department of Justice to handle the volume of removal proceedings initiated each year. 

Of course, throwing resources and additional staff at a broken 

system is not a solution. And whether we ultimately decide to restructure the entire immigration court system, I think there is 

plenty we can do in the interim to improve the process. 

It serves no one’s interest to have cases languishing for years before a decision is made. It also poses a potential security risk by 

allowing criminal aliens to remain at large in the United States 

while their cases are pending review for years. 

In the past, I have advocated for streamlining removal proceedings and judicial review to limit potential abuses and frivolous 

claims from clogging up the system. We should also address the 

many loopholes in the law that allow ineligible aliens to stay in the 

United States for significant periods of time and do a better job of 

enforcing final removal orders. 
4 

Courts can issue numerous removal orders, but the orders will 

have no effect if we continue to be lax in the enforcement of current 

immigration laws. The government needs to do a better job of locating aliens who have already shown a clear disregard for the law 

and expediting their removal from the United States. 

Expedited removal is one administrative tool that could help reduce the burdens on an already overwhelmed immigration court 

system. 

I join the chairman’s concerns in fixing our broken immigration 

system, but I personally do not believe the American people will 

support that effort until we have shown them that we are serious 

about enforcing the law. And if the law needs to be changed, then 

it is within the power of Congress, with the support of the American people, to change it in a way that reflects our values and our 

self-interests, frankly, in protecting our country against those who 

would come here for purposes other than to contribute to our society in a constructive way. 

But immigration court reform, I think, is a critical component of 

credible immigration reform and is absolutely required if we ever 

hope to regain the public’s trust in the government to do its job. 

We must also remember that building a better immigration court 

system is not the only thing we need to change. As I indicated earlier, we need effective border security and interior enforcement to 

make the immigration court system truly work. 

We need credible immigration reform to remedy the flaws in our 

immigration laws so that people can come here legally and those 

who have violated our laws may be removed in a timely manner. 

I remain committed, Mr. Chairman, to credible immigration reform and I am ready to engage on this issue when the President 

makes it a priority. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony today, as well as your 

recommendations for immigration court reform. 

Thank you again. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Thank you very much. I know that 

the group of us who worked with President Bush included Senator 

Cornyn. And, again, I do believe strongly in enforcement, but I also 

believe strongly in having an immigration law that reflects the reality of this country. 

I will first call on Juan Osuna, the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice. In 2009, he 

was appointed Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of 

Immigration Litigation, then continued his work on immigration 

policy as an Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department 

of Justice. 

From 2000 to 2009, he served on the Board of Immigration Appeals, becoming its chairman in 2008. And as of yesterday, he is 

the Director of EOIR. I offered him both congratulations and condolences, whichever it might be at whichever time of day it is. 

But we are delighted to have you here, and, please, go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JUAN P. OSUNA, DIRECTOR OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. OSUNA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
5 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Grassley, Senator Cornyn, Members of 

the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you 

today about the progress that the Executive Office for Immigration 

Review continues to make. 

The Executive Office, or EOIR, administers the Nation’s immigration court system, composed of 59 immigration courts around 

the country, plus the Board of Immigration Appeals. 

The Department of Justice and EOIR continue to take significant 

steps to maintain and further improve the operations of the court 

system and we are doing so at a time of great challenge for the 

courts, which received more cases over the past couple of years 

than anytime in its history. 

A large and growing proportion of these matters are related to 

aliens who are detained while they are awaiting their hearings. 

These detained cases continue to be the priority for EOIR, in large 

part, because they involve individuals who have criminal convictions that may make them deportable from the U.S. 

We anticipate that this emphasis on the removal of criminal 

aliens and others who pose a threat to the community will continue 

as the enforcement programs of the Department of Homeland Security continue to expand. 

Despite the challenge of an increasing caseload, I would like to 

share with you today some of the efforts that EOIR has undertaken 

that are designed to ensure prompt review of priority cases, while 

giving each individual case the review that it merits. 

A well functioning immigration court system begins with adequate resources, and the Department and EOIR are fully committed to ensuring that the immigration courts have the appropriate number of judges and staff needed to support our mission 

within the confines of an admittedly difficult budget climate. 

During Fiscal Year 2010 and into the beginning of Fiscal Year 

2011, EOIR undertook a major hiring initiative that resulted in the 

hiring of more than 50 new immigration judges. While this initiative was cut short due to budgetary restrictions on hiring and further reduced by attrition, we were still able to net a sizable increase in the immigration judge corps. 

The number of immigration judges reached a record level of 272 

in December 2010 and, as of today, stand at 268 judges hearing 

cases nationwide. 

We are very hopeful that Congress will support and approve the 

President’s Fiscal Year 2012 request for additional appropriations 

for EOIR in order to allow us to continue our successful hiring initiative. 

We also recognize, however, that it is not enough to hire the 

most qualified individuals to serve as immigration judges. It is 

vital that we properly train new judges and that we provide continuous training for judges as long as they are hearing cases. 

Conferences that EOIR held in 2009 and 2010 provided continuing education on many substantive legal issues, including asylum, adjustment of status, and many procedural issues. 

The current budget environment is making training a little bit 

more challenging, but EOIR is turning to other established methods of training to ensure that our immigration judges and members 
6 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals are always up-to-date on this 

rapidly changing area of law. 

The Department expects not only legally correct decisions from 

its immigration judges and members of the BIA, but also the demeanor and temperament appropriate for delegates of the Attorney 

General. 

This year, EOIR released a new ‘‘Ethics and Professionalism 

Guide for Immigration Judges’’ and we are ensuring that any allegations of misconduct against immigration judges receive prompt 

and adequate review and resolution. 

The Board of Immigration Appeals also continues to enhance the 

quality of its decisions, while keeping up with the appellate caseload. An indicator of the Board’s success is the Federal courts. 

There are approximately 530 fewer appeals from BIA decisions into 

the Federal courts today as opposed to a year ago, and overall, the 

number of BIA appeals to the Federal courts are about half today 

as what they were at the high water mark in 2006. 

In addition, the Federal courts are affirming BIA decisions at a 

higher rate. So far in 2011, the courts are affirming almost 90 percent of the Board’s decisions nationwide. 

We believe that the good work of the immigration courts and the 

BIA is worth noting and that with congressional support, it can 

continue to improve. 

Other programs, like the very successful legal orientation program, are expanding and helping respondents in proceedings better 

understand the system, while also helping to boost efficiency. 

We also have underway enhanced efforts to combat fraud, hold 

bad attorney responsible and accountable, and enhance the capacity of legitimate organizations to represent immigrants. 

Chairman Leahy, Senator Cornyn, Senator Grassley, this statement paints only a partial picture of the work that is being done 

at EOIR. I want to note that I do not view the immigration court 

system in isolation or as a standalone component. As you know, 

every removal case before an immigration judge begins with a DHS 

enforcement action, and, therefore, the Department of Justice and 

EOIR are in constant contact with DHS and other agencies in 

order to anticipate and respond to caseload trends. 

This important coordination effort allows our two departments to 

explore additional efficiencies and ways of handling the administrative caseload more efficiently, while ensuring that we are focusing 

those resources on the highest priority cases. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I look 

forward to answering any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Osuna appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness, Julie Myers Wood, served as Director of U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the last 3 years of 

the Bush Administration. Prior to that, she held positions at a variety of government agencies, including Department of Commerce, 

Department of Treasury, Department of Justice. 

It is good to see you again, Ms. Wood, and you are now president 

of INC Solutions, LLC. 
7 

Please go ahead. Your full statement, of course, will be made 

part of the record. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JULIE MYERS WOOD, PRESIDENT, 

ICS CONSULTING, LLC, ARLINGTON, VA 

Ms. WOOD. Thank you very much and good morning, Chairman 

Leahy and Ranking Member Cornyn and Senator Grassley and 

Members of the committee. It is great to see all of you again and 

also nice to be here more unofficially than as a government official. 

But it is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to talk a little 

bit about what I saw when I was at ICE and ways I think we can 

work to improve our immigration court system. 

As a former assistant secretary at ICE, I did really have an insider’s view of how the immigration court system can affect our 

overall immigration enforcement program. 

Years of delay for individual hearings affects the American 

public’s ability to believe that we are getting enforcement done and 

we are doing a good job, and can also lead individuals, like the individual that Chairman Leahy highlighted, can leave them in legal 

limbo for far too long. 

So I think what Ranking Member Cornyn is doing in looking at 

how can we address the immigration court system independently 

kind of makes a lot of sense. 

We should, however, not forget that the immigration court is 

only one part of the larger system and I am fully in support of the 

calls to reform our overall immigration system, and I think a bandaid fix approach will not be enough. And so we should look overall 

if we can make some changes and improvement. 

But given what we have and given the increasing number of 

cases that are coming into immigration court, I think there are several steps that can be taken now to improve efficiency and improve 

justice in the system. 

First, I would look to internal efficiencies and I think that under 

Juan’s leadership, the Department of Justice has taken some significant steps to try to improve efficiency in the immigration courts 

with the existing caseload. 

But I think there is more to be done. I think we can look to the 

model of the Federal criminal courts and look at some of the things 

they do there in terms of performance metrics and also in terms 

of supervisory judge roles to improve the performance and the professionalism of the court. 

It also makes sense to ensure that our judges are getting enough 

training on the complicated cases so they can move them along not 

only swiftly, but correctly, and not make kind of incorrect or unwise decisions as they move forward. 

But internal tweaks will only get us so far. And so we have to 

look—are there external things that we can do differently in this 

system that will not reduce our overall effectiveness in immigration 

enforcement, and I think there are a number of things that we can 

do. 

First, I think the Agency has been looking at prosecutorial discretion. What cases are in the courts now that should not be? And 

I think that makes complete sense. 
8 

A lot of times, in my experience, we would spend 5 years or a 

number of years litigating cases and, at the end of the day, decide 

that this was a case that should not be brought. We should decide 

that up front and keep that case out of immigration court. 

The same thing with voluntary departures. Many aliens are eligible for voluntary departures. That should be encouraged at the 

very beginning of the process so eligible aliens stay out of the immigration court system. 

There are also more mandatory methods that could be effective. 

I think looking at expedited removal, can we expand that, can we 

expand that to known smuggling routes, can we expand that to 

aliens who are incarcerated in certain instances, still within our 

current statutory authorities. I think that could make a lot of sense 

and then careully could be effective. 

We should also look at stipulated removal and a program called 

Rapid Prepack. One of the greatest pressures coming into the immigration court system are criminal aliens coming through the Secure Communities program. The Rapid Prepack program takes 

criminal aliens who are in states that have early release laws for 

citizens and essentially applies them also to non-violent criminal 

aliens and allows them to stipulate to their removal, saving them 

time in State prison and saving the government time in putting 

them through removal proceedings. 

That saved six states over $400 million to date and I think it is 

a program worth expanding. But we cannot look at efficiency kind 

of by itself without thinking of how are we making sure that justice 

is being done. And one of the concerns that I had when I served 

as assistant secretary are the number of times when representation 

was really needed, but it was not there. 

We have many good immigration and ICE attorneys that are 

looking hard to make sure they find the cases that warrant representation or warrant merit, but it is hard to find that when everybody is pro se. 

So I think it makes sense to look at are there vulnerable populations that would benefit through court-appointed representation. 

In addition, I think expanding the legal orientation program 

would be helpful. I saw that that program really made a difference 

in detention facilities, and, in fact, it has reduced detention time 

by an average of 7 days. So it is actually a cost-saving program. 

But right now, it is only in 27 facilities. So that is the kind of thing 

that I think could be expanded and could be done in a cost-saving 

manner to make sure that individuals get the attention they need. 

As I mentioned, I think these things are really just kind of arguing around the edges. We need overall reform and an overall look 

at the system, and I would join the Chairman, the Ranking Member’s and Senator Grassley’s efforts to do so. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wood appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. I have to keep reminding myself 

not to call you Ms. Myers anymore, but Ms. Wood, and thank you 

very much for your comments. I do appreciate them and I appreciate you being here. 
9 

Our last witness, Karen Grisez, is the chair of the American Bar 

Association’s Commission on Immigration. She oversaw the completion of the Commission’s comprehensive 2010 study on immigration 

adjudication, which is the study here. It is the most significant report of its kind, in more than a decade. 

Ms. Grisez is an attorney with the Washington, DC, office of 

Fried Frank, where she also serves as a public service counsel and 

advises attorneys in their pro bono work, including a large number 

of asylum cases. 

So, Ms. Grisez, again, we will put your full statement in the 

record. The report has been very helpful to my staff and to this 

committee. 

Why do you not, in the time that you have, please tell us what 

you would like us to remember especially from this hearing. 

STATEMENT OF MS. KAREN T. GRISEZ, CHAIR, COMMISSION 

ON IMMIGRATION, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. GRISEZ. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Grassley, Ranking Member Cornyn. I very much appreciate the opportunity to be with you all this morning to share the views of the 

ABA on ways to improve efficiency and justice in the immigration 

court system and to offer whatever I may have to share from my 

personal experience in the handling of matters in immigration 

court and supervising other lawyers in doing so. 

The ABA has a special interest in the efficiency and fairness of 

removal proceedings. The Commission, as you have heard, released 

a report last year making several recommendations for improving 

the removal adjudication system. 

I want to focus my remarks this morning on only a few of those 

recommendations that would boost efficiency, while also improving 

justice for those going through the system. 

I want to begin by commending Director Osuna on all the recent 

improvements that have been made at EOIR. We very much appreciate his efforts to improve the agency’s performance and, at the 

same time, we echo his concerns about the implications of DHS’ increased enforcement efforts and the spike in NTAs on EOIR’s ability to keep up with the caseload. 

Increased caseloads, as you know, without increased resources 

can only lead to burgeoning backlogs. We recommend, therefore, an 

increase in the hiring of IJ packages sufficient to bring caseloads 

down to a level comparable to those of other Federal administrative 

adjudication systems and, at a minimum, Congress should approve 

EOIR’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget request. 

An additional recommendation we have to increase the productivity of the immigration court without more judges is to hire more 

law clerks to support the judges at a ratio of one clerk to one judge, 

where now the average is more like one clerk to four judges. 

With enough new judges to bring caseloads down to manageable 

levels, we should also then expect formal written decisions rather 

than oral decisions hurriedly dictated immediately at the conclusions of hearings. This would improve quality of the decisions, increase confidence in them, and decrease both appeals and time-consuming remands. 
10 

Another important area of concern for the ABA is access to counsel. We also favor a system in which every person in removal proceedings, whether detained or not, would have access to a legal orientation program. The LOPs provide critical information about removeability and eligibility for various forms of relief, but equally 

important is the information that they provide to individuals who 

have no relief. 

Far too often, I see people pursuing appeal after appeal afer appeal every time a judge asks them, ‘‘Do you accept my decision or 

do you want to appeal?’’ I am one of the screeners that assists the 

DOJ in the BIA pro bono project and I constantly see people, pro 

se people pursuing appeals to the BIA, aggravated felons, with no 

relief under the law, and their appeal is ‘‘I want another chance. 

I’ll never do it again.’’ 

And where the cases may be sympathetic and there may be a lot 

of equities, there is no legal relief and those cases should not be 

in the system under the current law. 

Chairman LEAHY. (Off microphone.) 

Ms. GRISEZ. Yes. And the sooner, Mr. Chairman, the sooner persons get access to the LOP, the sooner they can make those decisions about abandoning when that is the appropriate avenue. 

We had a case in my firm where an associate was appointed to 

a ninth circuit appeal, and that individual, after several years of 

detention, had never spoken to a lawyer before. On review of the 

case, the lawyer found that while the individual was correct about 

a procedural defect in the conduct of his hearing below, he ultimately had no relief. He was not eligible for anything. 

So after counseling, that individual withdrew his appeal and accepted deportation, but that could have happened several years 

earlier if he had seen a lawyer earlier. 

We have three recommendations today on conserving immigration court resources. First, only those cases that actually need an 

adversarial process and where the Government has an intent to remove the person should be in the immigration court system. If 

there is no intent to remove or the person is prima facie eligible 

for relief, that latter category of cases could be handled administratively. 

Then, the use of pre-trial conferences, already authorized by the 

regs, should be more extensively used to narrow issues and preserve hearing time. 

Third, the last point is on asylum applications. We strongly favor 

moving defensive applications in removal proceedings in the first 

instance to the asylum offices of USCIS, where they can be adjudicated more quickly by specially trained officers. And, finally, 

elimination of the 1-year deadline. That is consuming a lot of adjudicatory resources, both at the asylum office level and later in immigration court. And our recommendation is that the time should 

be spent on the merits, ascertaining the need for protection and not 

only assessing when the person entered or whether they have appropriate proof of their date of entry. 

So with that, Senator, I will conclude my opening comments and 

am happy to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Grisez appears as a submission 

for the record.] 
11 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you very much. And I thank all 

three of you for your comments. To many, this is probably not seen 

as the most exciting of issues. Except for those who are in the immigration court system in one way or the other. Then it is a vital 

system and I think it is extraordinarily important not only for our 

country, but for our system of justice in the United States. 

Now, Mr. Osuna, let me ask you. Using DOJ’s data, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, or TRAC, found the immigration courts case backlog reached an all-time high of 267,000 

cases at the end of calendar year 2010, and, of course, that backlog 

is going to be difficult to reduce if you receive 400,000 new cases 

in Fiscal Year 2011. 

Assuming the enforcement policies remain the same, how does 

the White House coordinate budget policy so that we can ensure 

that there is adequate funding and staffing to keep up with these 

400,000 new cases coming in? 

Mr. OSUNA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. One of the real positive aspects 

of the last couple of years in my experience has been that there is 

an awareness at all levels, both within the Department, at DHS, 

at OMB, and at the White House, about this crucial link between 

enforcement and adjudications. 

It is critically important that we look at the system not by agency, agency-by-agency or even department-by-department, but as a 

process; that the removal process begins with an enforcement action and goes potentially all the way up into the Federal courts. 

The White House and OMB have been fully engaged and fully 

supportive of making sure that those links are maintained in the 

appropriations process and enhanced; that if there are enhancements to DHS enforcement programs, that there is some sort of assessment and a link made to what is going to be required in the 

immigration court system. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, when you look at what is required, you 

must have in mind what you think, in an ideal world, is the number of immigration judges you need. How many additional judges 

would you need? 

Mr. OSUNA. Well, I think what we are looking at—it is a difficult 

question, to one extent, because we do not know exactly what we 

are going to see with enforcement patterns in the future. 

It is likely that if enforcement patterns continue at DHS the way 

they are, that we will be facing a substantial increase in immigration court proceedings in 2011 and 2012. 

I think, at a minimum, we are looking at a hiring initiative comparable to the one that we just undertook for the last year and a 

half, which was roughly about 50 new immigration judges. But that 

is a very rough number that would depend a lot on a lot of other 

factors. 

It is possible that even with an additional 50 judges, for example, 

that these enforcement patterns could be such that it might not be 

enough. 

On the other hand, if the Congress does pass some sort of comprehensive immigration reform bill that has a wide effect on the 

system, that will also be a game-changer in many ways for the immigration courts. 
12 

Chairman LEAHY. Is it safe to say, assuming things stay the 

same, you are going to need more? 

Mr. OSUNA. Absolutely. 

Chairman LEAHY. And, Ms. Grisez, let me ask you. Statistics 

from the Department of Justice show the asylum grant rate in immigration courts is approximately 50 percent, coming up from a 

low of 16 percent in 1996. 

Let me play the devil’s advocate a little bit. Does this show the 

immigration courts are getting it right, or do we have to worry 

about asylum-seekers in the system? 

Ms. GRISEZ. Well, Senator, it is difficult to say what the 

right—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Is your microphone on? 

Ms. GRISEZ. There, sorry. It is difficult to say what the right 

number is and I would never say that there should be a uniform 

percentage of what the approval rate should be. 

Two different things are going on. One is the asylum office has 

gotten better and as the asylum office adjudications are improving, 

fewer cases are making their way into the immigration court system than formerly were. 

Another thing is that fewer asylum-seekers, in the first instance, 

are coming to the United States. So those going into the system 

from the expedited removal process and coming straight into court 

for adjudication have also been reduced. 

But as Director Osuna said, more people in immigration court 

and certainly more non-detained people in immigration court have 

been getting counsel over the recent years. So that is one of the factors that may be contributing to the current grant rate. 

But at the same time, this is all in the context of people coming 

from different situations, from different countries, different dynamics, all over the world. So the grant rate should never be stable. 

It should be justice. It should be the right result in every particular 

case, regardless of—— 

Chairman LEAHY. You may have a major civil war, even a genocidal operation in one part of the world which may dramatically 

spike the numbers, just to give one example. 

Ms. GRISEZ. Yes, Your Honor. At any given time—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Cornyn is the only one who has been 

a judge. My time is up, but I have one more question. 

Ms. Wood, we have all talked about the importance of counsel. 

Ms. Wood, you know Asa Hutchinson, former Undersecretary of 

Homeland Security, former Member of the House of Representatives. Both of you have spoken in public about the efficiencies you 

gain when the attorneys are available to represent detained immigrants in deportation proceedings. 

Now, you were in a position where, as an official, you were 

charged with removing immigrants. Did counsel help ICE? Did it 

help? How could it be more efficient? 

Ms. WOOD. Absolutely. And when I was a Federal prosecutor, 

some of the hardest cases that I tried were cases that were pro se 

cases. 

It was hard for the judge to decipher kind of what was going on. 

It was hard to make sure, as an officer of the court, that the defendant was able to present their case appropriately, and it was 
13 

very difficult. And I saw absolutely the same thing at ICE in civil 

immigration proceedings. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. I think anybody who has been a 

prosecutor will say that you actually have an easier time if you 

have good counsel on the other side. 

Ms. WOOD. Absolutely. Absolutely. And you have a duty. The 

ICE attorneys feel that they are officers of the court under the 

Rules of Professional Responsibility. They have a duty to make 

sure that justice is done. And so they are looking to see are there 

some sort of issues, and sometimes, particularly with mentally incompetent individuals or unaccompanied minors that do not have 

representation, it is really hard to figure out is there—is there 

something there that could allow them to adjust or is there not. 

And so counsel definitely helped and aided those cases. 

Chairman LEAHY. Judge Cornyn. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CORNYN. I thought Ms. Grisez calling you Your Honor 

was a nice touch, actually. 

Chairman LEAHY. Actually, I appreciate it very much. 

Ms. GRISEZ. It was really that I was just so eager to speak with 

Senator Cornyn. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. We will start the clock again for Senator 

Cornyn, because I do not want to take his time, but I know, having 

spent years in courtrooms before I came here, I at least twice in 

my first 6 months as a very, very junior Member of one of the committees referred to the chairman as his honor, and I considered it 

a compliment to him. So I took it as a compliment. 

Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The average time it takes to dispose of an immigration case, the 

national average, I believe, is 467 days. Mr. Osuna, you can correct 

me if I am wrong, but those are the numbers that I have. 

In California, it is 639 days, and I am glad to say in Texas it 

is 253 days, although I do not think that is anything to be proud 

of, in particular. 

You have talked a lot about the resources that you need and 

whether counsel are appointed and the problems of trying to litigate cases with pro se parties. 

But let me talk to you just briefly about the streamlining of judicial review as a general matter, and I would like to get the views 

of all three witnesses. 

We know that multiple layers of review can sometimes catch mistakes that are made and certainly, if you are talking about a death 

penalty case, you want to make sure you have the maximum sort 

of review and opportunities for people who are wrongly convicted 

to raise those issues. 

But in fairly routine matters that take 30 minutes before a trial 

judge, and you can correct me if I am wrong, but I am advised that 

an asylum case would take maybe an hour, depending on the nature of the evidence produced, but many of these cases are really 

not in dispute in terms of the facts of the matter. 

It is a question of getting somebody the due process that is required and getting him in front of the judge. But the multiple lay-
14 

ers, a hearing before an immigration judge, a review by the Board 

of Immigration Appeals, a possible review by the circuit court of 

appeals, what sort of opportunities do you see—and I would like 

each of the witnesses to respond to this—for streamlining judicial 

review that would not sacrifice basic fairness and the rule of law, 

but which would give more certainty and perhaps cut down on 

some of the logjam which we find not only before the immigration 

judges, but before the circuit courts? 

Mr. OSUNA. Let me just start with a little bit of overview. In 

terms of the multiple levels of appeals, 90 percent of immigration 

judge decisions never get appealed beyond the immigration judge 

stage. 

In other words, the immigration judge decision in 90 percent of 

the cases—in fact, it is more than that, it is about 92 percent these 

days—ends right there. 

In detained cases, cases tend to move very, very quickly, for the 

most part, nationwide. Detained cases, the appeal rate there is 

even smaller than the national average. I am not sure what it is, 

but it is about half the regular appeal rate, meaning that it is close 

to 4 or 5 percent of the nationwide average of 8 to 10 percent. 

So I think it is an important big picture or item to talk about, 

because, again, the vast majority of cases never go beyond the immigration judge stage. 

The Agency does focus, as we mentioned, on detained cases and 

I have begun to talk about the system more in terms of bifurcated 

system between detained and non-detained, because that is really 

what it has turned into. 

Because of enforcement patterns, because of everything else, the 

focus of the agencies, not just at ICE, but also at the EOIR, is on 

the adjudication of detained cases. 

The Department has set this as a priority. What that means for 

EOIR is that resources and immigration judge docket time and immigration judges themselves are being shifted into the detained 

dockets, for obvious reasons. Those are the individuals that are detained at cost to the government. There is a liberty interest there, 

and often those individuals are the ones that have criminal convictions that we should be moving relatively quickly through the system. 

In terms of changes, the Department is not in a position to support—— 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Osuna, may I make a suggestion that—I 

am going to ask you to followup, since time is limited here, in writing with some of your suggestions and I am really earnest in my 

request to get your advice and support on this, but I want to give 

the other witnesses a chance to answer this question, and I hope 

we get a couple of rounds and we can come back to some other 

issues. 

Ms. Wood. 

Ms. WOOD. Certainly, I would agree with Juan that the majority 

of cases kind of do not get appealed. I think one of the really important things is reducing the cases that go into the immigration 

courts at the core level to begin with. 

Then I think looking to see—— 

Senator CORNYN. And how do you do that? 
15 

Ms. WOOD. How do you do that? By expanding, by looking at 

kind of a potential expansion of expedited removal. 

Senator CORNYN. Is that within the Secretary’s discretion to expand the category of cases that are subject to expedited removal? 

Ms. WOOD. It is. By statute, right now, the Agency would have 

up to 2 years—if an individual had been in the country, up to 2 

years. Right now, they are doing if an individual has been in the 

country up to 14 days and 100 miles from the border. 

You could certainly target like certain smuggling routes where it 

is easy to see that people have only been in the country kind of a 

certain amount of time or you could look in certain detention facilities, people who are convicted of State and local crimes, where it 

is also easy to show that they have been in the country for a short 

period of time, and that might be a good category. 

Also, stipulated removal. I know the ninth circuit had a case that 

had limited somewhat stipulated removal, U.S. v. Ramos, but there 

are things that can be done kind of in that area and that is within 

the Agency’s discretion. 

Also, cases that are appropriate for voluntary departures and 

prosecutorial discretion, just weeding those out up front. And so 

the goal would be, at the end of the day, there are not a lot of successful appeals because cases that would be successful appeals, you 

are not getting into the system kind of in the first place. So you 

are making the right decision. 

So I would really focus there and then perhaps look at whether 

the BIA kind of legal advisor pro bono program could make sure 

they are matching people up with education to see whether or not 

an appeal is worth their time. 

Senator CORNYN. Ms. Grisez. With the chairman’s permission. 

My time is over, but please go ahead. 

Ms. GRISEZ. Thank you. The response, I think, is very much 

what Ms. Wood has indicated, that we should never be sacrificing 

protection for people, the protection of life and liberty, by eliminating layers of judicial review. 

The right thing to do is get the decision right in the first instance. 

Senator CORNYN. If I could just interject here. Of course, we recognize the different layers of judicial review, given the severity and 

gravity of the charges and the potential sanction, and, certainly, we 

are not going to give the same level of judicial review for people 

running stop signs and the like, not that we are talking about 

those kind of cases. 

But are you suggesting that we could not streamline judicial review, and appellate review in particular, without sacrificing the 

ability to litigate these cases fairly and in accordance with the law? 

Ms. GRISEZ. Well, I do not think that it should be that access to 

the Federal courts for review should be reduced beyond what it already is. There were already substantial restrictions on judicial review in connection with the IIRIRA in 1996. Now, the cases that 

are still amenable to judicial review are those where the stakes are 

very high and people who are dissatisfied with their results below. 

Especially in a system that we know is not yet perfect, that opportunity for review should not go away. My view would be that 

we should be increasing protections on the front end, LOP for ev-
16 

eryone, access to counsel, better trained, better resourced immigration judges will produce better results there; then, at the BIA, what 

is already happening, moving away from affirmances without opinions to lengthier decisions, more three-member panel review than 

one, and that is a place that we think we should return to grater 

levels of consideration at the BIA. 

And then with those measures correctly in place and the decisions better, you will have fewer appeals, and we are already starting to see that. In the second and the ninth circuits, under the 

prior so-called streamlining reforms at the board, the rates of appeal in the circuit court were up so high that more than half of the 

caseload in the ninth circuit was immigration matters and more 

than 40 percent in the second circuit. 

With the changes that have happened at the board, those rates 

are coming back in line. Reversal rates are decreasing and rates of 

appeal are decreasing. So I think it illustrates that protections on 

the front end, getting it right below is the way to solve the problem 

of appeals, not cutting off the level of appeals when there are still 

infirmities in the system below. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

On the subject of getting it right below, you have the good luck 

or misfortune of having three former prosecutors on the panel 

today and I want to ask a question that focuses on what happens 

below, what happens in the process leading to the judicial part of 

the system. 

And we are here to evaluate the court system, but, obviously, in 

any judicial system, the judicial actors have a responsibility to 

make sure that the folks on the ground, the policing element get 

it right. 

In Connecticut, for example, we have had a number of instances 

where the tactics or conduct of the ICE agents in their raids and 

other activities have been questioned. 

I wonder if members of the panel, beginning with you, Director 

Osuna, could comment on what responsibilities the immigration judicial element have to supervise what is happening on the ground 

in policing and how well they are doing it. 

Mr. OSUNA. A lot of this has to do with ICE policy that I will 

probably not be able to talk about, but I would just say, generally, 

this, Senator. Certainly, the Fifth Amendment due process protections apply immigration court, as they do in most administrative 

proceedings, and immigration judges do see or hear cases once in 

a while where there may have been something that crossed the line 

at the enforcement stage. 

I think it is fairly rare, in my experience, that they see those instances, but when they do, the due process protections do apply 

and they will take appropriate action when the particular case— 

when that happens. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. To some extent, though, the assertion of 

due process rights often depends on an advocate who knows the 

law. And as Ms. Wood’s testimony indicates, 84 percent of all the 

individuals who come before the immigration courts are unrepre-
17 

sented by counsel and may be completely unaware of these rights 

and come from countries where the rights do not exist in the first 

place. 

Mr. OSUNA. Yes. And by the way, and I certainly share the sentiments that good counsel and adequate counsel make all the difference, not just for the immigrants, but also for the system. The 

84 percent number, I should note, is in the detained context. 

People that are detained while they are awaiting their hearings, 

84–85 percent of those individuals do not have counsel. In the nondetained context, as Ms. Grisez mentioned earlier, it has improved, 

to some extent. And if cases go to the merits, most of those are actually—especially, for example, in Hartford, in your state, I think 

upward to 90 percent of people that go to merits hearings in the 

non-detained context in the Hartford immigration court are represented by counsel. 

Adequate counsel is critical. There is no getting around that. And 

we have seen some improvements in the non-detained context, but 

we still have a long way to go on the detained. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Any other members of the panel want to 

comment on that question? 

Ms. WOOD. I would just agree with kind of Juan’s comments and 

say, also, that in my experience, individuals that had things that 

have happened to them that are not—that maybe are not appropriate have also challenged those in Federal court and other places. 

So there are also other opportunities, and often those cases are 

cases that are of great interest to counsel, pro bono groups and the 

like. 

Ms. GRISEZ. Senator, one thing I think that is important here is 

the interagency work that is going on and will continue to go on, 

I am sure, between the Department of Justice and the Department 

of Homeland Security, because when you are talking about immigration policing and the enforcement side, that is in a different 

agency, as you understand, from where the immigration judges are. 

So the immigration judges do not oversee ICE or the—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I do understand and that is the reason 

why I asked the question. 

Ms. GRISEZ. Right. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I think especially revealing was the 

preface to Director Osuna’s answer, which was that he could not 

speak to ICE policy. 

If we were talking about the FBI, there is no way that a Department of Justice official would say, ‘‘Well, I can’t speak to what Federal agents are doing.’’ 

And that is the reason really for the question. Who is supervising? Who is exercising authority to make sure that those ICE 

agents comply with the Fifth Amendment and other constitutional 

guarantees? 

Ms. GRISEZ. So I think the answer is right. The immigration 

judges, in a limited sense, when someone raises those issues, in 

some cases, will deal with them. Some immigration judges will not 

touch constitutional issues and they do not think they have jurisdiction over them, and they will leave that for the appellate process. 
18 

But, again, that plays back into your point that if you have a pro 

se person who does not know where the violations are or someone 

has not been able to have access to a lawyer, those claims are not 

getting made, and that is, I think, where a huge number of the 

problems occur, not just constitutional violations, but others are in 

proceedings that move very quickly, no lawyer, nobody to spot the 

problems. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank the 

witnesses here today for your excellent work on these issues. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

We are now going to recognize Senator Grassley. I have to go to 

the Appropriations Committee. Senator Franken, thank you very, 

very much for coming to take over. 

Senator FRANKEN. My honor. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I ask permission to put a statement in the 

record before I ask questions. 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator GRASSLEY. Director, currently, the Office of Professional 

Responsibility at DOJ initiates investigations of immigration 

judges whenever a Federal appellate court issues a decision critical 

of the conclusions reached by the judge. 

To me, this practice is the equivalent of investigating a Federal 

district judge for misconduct every time the judge is reversed by an 

appeal to the circuit court. It is extremely damaging to the morale 

of immigration judges to be subject to an investigation based on 

nothing more than having reached conclusions that are later challenged by a panel of Federal circuit judges. 

Even worse are the repercussions for the administration of justice in our immigration courts. Under its practice, the Office of Professional Responsibility will usually investigate immigration judges 

only in cases where they deny relief that is later granted by a Federal court. 

Consequently, the course of least resistance for immigration 

judges is to grant relief in many cases, despite their belief that the 

case might be without merit. 

Immigration judges will naturally feel pressure to reach decisions 

that satisfy the most extreme appellate panel that might be assigned to their cases. This pressure will naturally result in immigration judges approving baseless asylum claims and applications 

for relief, and I believe that General Holder should end this practice. 

But I want to ask your judgment. I understand the concept of an 

annual performance review. I understand OPR investigating a 

judge when a complaint is lodged. But why does OPR independently and on its own investigate immigration judges when the Federal courts reverse a decision and say that the judge should have 

ruled in favor of the alien? 

How is that not intimidation? The Judges Union certainly thinks 

so. What do you say? 

Mr. OSUNA. Without getting too much into the OPR mechanics 

there, I do not think it is quite accurate to say that OPR inves-
19 

tigates any time that a Federal tribunal or appellate court reverses 

an immigration judge. 

In my experience, though, peer investigations are quite rare. 

They happen only in certain instances where OPR deems it appropriate. But it is not in every case where an appellate court reverses 

an immigration judge’s decision. 

I do not believe that immigration judges are granting more asylum cases because of OPR investigations. I think there are other 

reasons for that. It was mentioned earlier that perhaps in the merits non-detained asylum context, representation is better. And, in 

fact, in my experience, from what I hear from immigration judges, 

that is the case in many cities, that representation of immigrants— 

of asylum-seekers in merits hearings is better. 

I think that is probably more of an explanation as to why immigration judges are granting more cases these days. 

Senator GRASSLEY. You could disagree with my characterization 

of it, but the Judges Union certainly thinks that is the case. And 

this came up in the House Judiciary Committee hearing on immigration courts last June. 

So have you done anything to look into whether judges do, in 

fact, feel intimidation? 

Mr. OSUNA. In my experience, immigration judges are not being 

intimidated into granting more asylum cases by OPR, by the possibility of an OPR investigation. 

Senator GRASSLEY. So in other words, you feel that the union is 

completely wrong in their characterization. Well, let me move on. 

In 2008, a Department of Justice attorney wrote a memo saying 

that only 19 percent of those ordered to be removed after appeal 

to the Federal court were actually tracked down by ICE and deported. Of the 8,000 aliens that appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, the Justice Department prevailed in 7,200 cases. Of the 

7,200 cases with removal orders, only 1,375 were actually deported. 

The conclusion is that the government is winning these cases, 

but ICE is not removing aliens, begging the question—what is the 

point? 

So my question to you is, we have a process. People undocumented get an ample chance to appeal orders to leave the country. 

But at the end of the day, another branch of government ends up 

ignoring what the immigration judge, the Board of Immigration 

Appeals, and the Federal courts have decided. 

Does that concern you? 

Mr. OSUNA. I think that removal orders, once the process has 

been completed, should be enforced promptly. I think that that goes 

to the integrity of the process and it is necessary for the process 

to have the legitimacy in the eyes of the public. 

I do think that ICE does the best it can with its resources to try 

to enforce removal orders, but, certainly, that is an important part 

of making sure that the process does have meaning. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I hope I will have time for a couple more 

questions on a second round. 

Senator FRANKEN [presiding]. Absolutely, or you can do it now. 

Senator GRASSLEY. If I could do it now, I would. 

Senator FRANKEN. Sure. Go ahead. 
20 

Senator GRASSLEY. Also, for you Director. On April 26, Attorney 

General Holder vacated a BIA decision to deport a alien from Ireland who was attempting to avoid deportation based on his civil 

union in New Jersey with a U.S. citizen. 

The BIA held that the alien should be deported specifically because DOMA does not recognize same-sex marriage. 

With an appeal pending in the Third Circuit, the attorney general vacated the BIA decision and ordered the Board to consider 

whether the appellant could be considered a spouse under New Jersey law and whether he would be considered a spouse under immigration law, if not for DOMA. 

While the attorney general has the authority to vacate and overrule BIA decisions, this authority has rarely been used. 

So my question to you is, does it concern you that the attorney 

general’s interference in this matter, while within his authority, intrudes upon the independent judgment of BIA? And as the branch 

of DOJ that oversees the immigration court system in the BIA, 

were you or any of your staff consulted about the AG’s decision to 

step in and did you recommend against it, given the importance of 

BIA’s maintaining its independence? 

Mr. OSUNA. Senator, it does not concern me. The attorney general does have, of course, the authority to certify and vacate any 

decision from the BIA. As you noted, it is an authority that is rarely granted and I think the attorney general certainly steps in when 

he deems it appropriate. 

It does not concern me that that authority exists, because in my 

experience, it has not been used in an inappropriate way that 

would impinge on the independence of the BIA. 

Senator GRASSLEY. But does it not concern you that there is interference when the courts have not decided that the DOMA law 

is unconstitutional? 

Mr. OSUNA. Well, the attorney general took that action in that 

case because he felt that there were other issues apart from the 

constitutionality of DOMA that had to be fleshed out at the administrative level rather than in the Federal court in the third circuit. 

I think the attorney general’s decision lays those out in terms of 

the possible hardship of that issue and whether the civil union is 

even—should be even recognized as a marriage. 

So I think that the attorney general felt that there were additional factual and legal issues that needed to be fleshed out by the 

BIA, possibly the immigration judge in that case, and that is why 

he took that action in that particular case. 

Senator GRASSLEY. And my last question. Does not the fact that 

immigration appeals to the circuit court have declined significantly 

in the past few years indicate that the Board of Immigration Appeals is doing a better and more thorough job of handling its caseload? 

Then, last, I am concerned about increasing the sizes of the 

Board and the impact that would have on efficiency. Are there any 

discussions underway at the Department about increasing the size 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals? 

Mr. OSUNA. I wholeheartedly agree that the drastic decrease in 

the number of cases going to the appellate courts is an indicator 

that the BIA is doing a much better job than it used to do a few 
21 

years ago, and that has been a deliberate effort for the last couple 

of years. 

And I am sorry, the second—the size of the Board. We are under 

discussions for a number of procedural issues at the BIA to deal 

with the streamlining of reforms that were put in place and whether there are any additional reforms available. 

So far in discussions with the Department, we have not discussed 

increasing the size of the BIA. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy. 

Senator FRANKEN. You are welcome. Thank you. 

Ms. Grisez, last year, the Advocates for Human Rights, a Minnesota-based immigration advocacy organization, submitted a comprehensive report to the United Nations on our Nation’s immigration court system. One of their conclusions was the following quote: 

‘‘The U.S. immigrant detention system contravenes the United 

States’ obligations to protection of family unity. Family unity cannot be considered in mandatory detention cases, and the United 

States routinely fails to consider family unity when making discretionary detention decisions.’’ 

Do you agree with that conclusion and if so, why? 

Ms. GRISEZ. Well, Senator, it is certainly true that under the current law, 236(c), providing for mandatory detention in certain 

cases, people are going to be detained in a way that disrupts family 

unity. There is no question about that. 

The other problem I think is that detention has an effect not only 

on the conduct of the proceedings, but actually the outcome, because detention can cause breadwinners, obviously, to lose their income. Because of the delays in processing, it can cause people to 

lose their homes. 

People, when they lose their jobs, can lose their insurance. They 

then lose medical care. So in some cases, the fact of detention itself 

has a coercive effect on the person in proceedings to actually abandon their claim and agree to depart, because the family cannot tolerate the economic impacts and emotional and psychological impacts of detention. 

So I would certainly agree that although there are some cases 

where people absolutely need to be detained, there are others 

where detention is not necessary to secure the person’s appearance 

and family unity and the health, economic and otherwise, of the 

family unit would be better maintained if persons were free from 

detention until the conclusion of their proceedings. 

Senator FRANKEN. How long is a typical detention? 

Ms. GRISEZ. Well, we heard earlier some statistics that an average is near a year. There are cases that are much longer, there are 

cases that are—if someone agrees to deportation right away and 

does not pursue any forms of relief, it can be less than 30 days. 

So how long a case takes really depends on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Ms. Grisez, also, the American Bar Association’s report cited a 

recent study published in the Stanford Law Review that found that 

in the three largest immigration courts, a quarter of the judges 
22 

granted asylum at rates that were more than 50 percent different 

from the overall courts’ average grant rate. 

The same study found that female judges grant asylum at a rate 

44 percent higher than male judges. To what do you attribute these 

disparities and what do you think we need to do to fix them? 

Ms. GRISEZ. Well, Senator, I would not be troubled by minor 

variations from judge to judge or from court to court, because there 

are a lot of different factors that go into that. 

The caseloads are different, the sending countries in some courts 

are different, whether the population in a certain court is in proceedings because of criminal convictions or otherwise, all of those 

things are a factor. 

But what concerns me is the disparity, for example, where the 

grant rate ranges from 8 percent to 93 percent. 

Senator FRANKEN. This is within the same court. 

Ms. GRISEZ. Right. But even within the same court, judges can 

be all over the map and that suggests to me, again, that some of 

the improvements that are already underway with more careful 

hiring, better training, closer supervision, should help bring the 

grant rates closer together, but there should never be a standard, 

a goal or a quota where every judge should be granting X percent 

of their cases. 

Senator FRANKEN. No. But what accounts for the disparity and 

how should that be addressed? Is there any way to address that? 

Ms. GRISEZ. Well, there are temperamental differences among individuals and, in the past, there has been a situation where much 

of the immigration hiring has come out of the previous trial attorney corps or others involved with law enforcement or prosecution. 

So one possible explanation for the grant rates is folks that come 

from a prosecutorial or enforcement background, not the only explanation. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, we have sentencing guidelines in courts 

that were adopted to address the same kind of situation where you 

could be—depending on which judge you got, in the same court, 

you would get widely disparate sentences. And so there seemed to 

be—sentencing guidelines were made in order to put some kind of 

fairness in there so that you were not randomly getting a hanging 

judge or getting a judge that was going to let you go. 

So I was just wondering, maybe, Mr. Osuna, do you have any 

opinion on doing something parallel to some kind of guidelines that 

could make these disparities less apparent? 

Ms. OSUNA. Let me just review a little bit about what has been 

done about disparities and then talk about other possibilities. 

When you look—and I agree with the characterization that there 

is such—with factually difficult and factually diverse cases, you do 

have to allow for some disparity, a few percentage points. That is 

not unique to the immigration court system. That is not unique to 

any court system. 

However, I also agree that with similar cases in the same court, 

with similar fact patterns and similar countries with regard to asylum, wide disparties of 80 percentage points are troubling and 

should be looked at. 

This has been dealt with by EOIR in terms of management initiatives. What the office of the chief immigration judge has done is 
23 

to take a look at those outlying judges, the ones that have very 

high or very low rates, and not to tell them that they are granting 

too many cases or denying too many cases, because you definitely 

do not want to do that with an independent adjudicator, but see 

what else is going on in the case, see what else is going on with 

the judge, see if there is some legal deficiency, some temperament 

deficiency, some remedial training that needs to be done. 

Those judges are then mentored. They are given some specific 

targeted attention and the evidence that we have—and I think the 

organization that published that study in the Stanford Law Review 

actually has reported recently or in the past year or so, I believe, 

that the disparities have gotten better. In other words, they have 

narrowed, to some extent, and I attribute that to the management 

initiatives of the chief immigration judge that have dealt with this. 

I think that we have to be very careful to mandate a system or 

a pattern of a grid that has been suggested in the past, that if a 

certain fact pattern falls into a certain part of a grid, then it is a 

grant of asylum, and if it does not—I would be opposed to that, because, again, in my experience, these are just way too diverse to 

really deal with it in those terms. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. Thank you for that answer. 

I would like to turn to the Ranking Member. Do you have any 

further questions, Senator Cornyn? 

Senator CORNYN. I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

First, for you, Ms. Wood. Do you agree with the statement that 

lengthy wait times for removal proceedings allow illegal aliens to 

buildup equities for relief or establish qualifying relationships or 

employment to get relief from removal, and it also allows criminal 

aliens to remain in the United States and removable aliens to continue working while awaiting a decision in their case? 

Ms. WOOD. I do. 

Senator CORNYN. And is that another reason why it is important 

for us to get these numbers down? Because the longer justice is delayed, whatever the outcome may be, it basically works in favor of 

the alien who is seeking to stay here, even though they came into 

the country in violation of the law. Is that correct? 

Ms. WOOD. Certainly, it works against kind of entire immigration 

enforcement system; to wit, the longer you stay, if you do not show 

up for your final immigration court hearing and you abscond and 

then you build equities in the community for 20 more years, you 

are more likely to, at the end of the day, be able to stay, that is 

unfair to people who are playing by the rules and people who are 

waiting in lines outside the country. 

So it is very important to try to figure out how can we make our 

removal orders more enforceable. And I think to its credit, I do 

think ICE is trying to look at how can they keep better track of 

people during the lengthy appeals process. That is a challenge. 

At times, they have not had their people’s addresses and other 

things. But having some sort of monitoring or other ways to keep 

track of people, so that when they know when they are finally ordered removed, if they have gone through an appeals process, the 

Agency can actually locate them and encourage them to go home. 

If they do not go home, assist them home more directly, makes a 

lot of sense. 
24 

Senator CORNYN. As I indicated in my opening statement, I really think that the problem Congress and the Federal Government 

have is a credibility problem when it comes to our immigration system. And until such time as we regain the public’s confidence with 

more uniformity, more predictability, less gaming of the system, 

then it is going to be hard for us to do the sorts of things I think 

we need to do to fix our immigration system. So I think that is an 

important point. 

Ms. Grisez, on the point we were talking about earlier about appointment of counsel, I just want to ask you, do you believe that 

every alien should be entitled to an attorney prior to expedited removal? For example, aliens who walk across the border and who 

get turned around. 

I guess what I am trying to do is test your—at what point you 

think the charges are sufficiently serious that it would warrant 

taxpayer expense to providing them a lawyer. 

Ms. GRISEZ. I do not believe, Senator, that the ABA has a policy 

(off microphone.) I do not believe the ABA has policy favoring the 

appointment of counsel as part of the expedited removal process. 

Our policy is that there should be a triage type of system where 

everybody coming in to removal proceedings, but that means Section 240 full removal proceedings, which, in the case of expedited 

removal, would be after passage of credible fear, that those persons 

should have access to a legal orientation program with appointment of counsel for vulnerable populations, such as mentally ill 

and children, and those cases where there has been identified eligibility for relief and the person is otherwise unable to find paid 

counsel or have pro bono counsel. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you for that clarification. I appreciate it. 

Mr. Osuna and Ms. Wood, I want to ask you about the effect of 

the Supreme Court’s decision in the Zadvydas case that I know you 

are familiar with. And for those who are not familiar with it, it limits the length of time that an alien may be detained. 

Usually, if the alien is not removed within 6 months, he or she 

must be released, unless the alien is a national security threat or 

subject to mandatory detention as an aggravated felon. 

In your experience and in your observation, Mr. Osuna, what effect does Zadvydas have on current immigration proceedings? 

Mr. OSUNA. Well, I am not sure it has much effect on the proceedings themselves. Our immigration judges will hear bond appeals for people that are detained, whether they are—and usually 

it happens before removal proceedings are concluded. 

Lately, there is some case law from the Ninth Circuit that may 

expand that a little bit. But I am not sure that I see much effect 

in terms of the Zadvydas decision itself on the court system as it 

exists. 

There are implications for detention beyond that, but nothing 

necessarily on the immigration court system. 

Senator CORNYN. I guess I would broaden my question and say 

I am not just focusing on the immigration court system. I am talking about on our ability to detain and remove aliens who are ordered, in effect, by the Supreme Court to have to be released in the 

community unless they are designated a national security threat or 

an aggravated felon. 
25 

Ms. Wood, do you have any observations? 

Ms. WOOD. I think the Zadvydas decision has made it very difficult for the Agency sometimes to detain individuals who should 

be detained and also creates somewhat of a disincentive for countries that are non-cooperating in terms of getting cooperation to return people home. 

It is incredibly unfair that if you happen to be an immigrant 

from a country who is cooperative on removal, then you are likely 

to be detained, you are likely to be removed. But if you are an immigrant from a different country, you are likely to get a removal 

order or not and then be released out into the community and be 

able to kind of go on with your life. 

So the Zadvydas fix that you have looked at over a number of 

years I do think makes a lot of sense and would be very helpful 

for the Agency as a whole. 

Senator CORNYN. If the chairman will allow me just to ask a 

quick followup on that. 

Senator FRANKEN. Absolutely. 

Senator CORNYN. This is something I am not sure most people 

really understand and appreciate, that part of our success in enforcing our own immigration laws is the willingness of the country 

of origin to accept those people to come back. 

Are there countries that are sort of notorious for not allowing 

that or for being particularly difficult in accepting their own citizens for removal proceedings? 

Ms. WOOD. There absolutely are countries that have been kind 

of historically difficult. China and India are among the countries 

that are the most difficult. And it is hard, because although there 

are some methods in the law which theoretically the Agency could 

use to try to convince those countries to cooperate, obviously, our 

dealings with China and India are so much broader than repatriation of Chinese or Indian nationals. 

And so often it is very difficult for the Agency to push forward 

with something to help. That is an issue that we worked on very 

closely with Secretary Chertoff. I know that this Administration 

has worked on it. 

And it is really troubling, because at the end of the day, you have 

a system that treats people from different countries differently and 

that is not what our country is about. 

Senator CORNYN. To put a point on it, actually, the alien can 

benefit from his or her own country refusing to accept them back 

because the Supreme Court has said in Zadvydas, you cannot detain these people more than 6 months. 

Ms. WOOD. That is right. And, you know, as a practical matter, 

you would not want to be in a position where the Agency had to 

detain people for really, really long periods of time if there was no 

reasonable likelihood of removal. But this sharp cutoff and having 

no alternatives does make it very difficult and I think hurts our negotiations with foreign countries, as well. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Chairman, this morning, I noticed in the 

news clips that 513 individuals, I believe, were detained coming 

across the border in two trucks, which has to be a world record, 

including people from some of the countries that Ms. Wood mentioned, and this is coming across the U.S.-Mexico border, people 
26 

from countries all over the world, because of the well known pathways and human smuggling routes into the United States. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Before I gavel this hearing out, I ask unanimous consent to place 

in the record a report by the Katzmann study group, named for 

Judge Katzmann of the Second Circuit, on representation of immigrants. 

[The report appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. I also place in the record a large number of 

submissions from pro bono attorneys, law school clinic and legal 

aide providers, making suggestions for improvements in to the immigration courts. Without objection, I so order. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. I would like to thank all of you for your testimony today. The record will be held open for 1 week for questions 

and other materials. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 
(27) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
28 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAREN T. GRISEZ
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JUAN P. OSUNA
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JULIE MYERS WOOD
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PATRICK J. LEAHY
56 
57 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER CHUCK GRASSLEY
58 
59 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO KAREN T. GRISEZ BY SENATOR CORNYN
60 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO JUAN P. OSUNA BY SENATOR CORNYN

[Note: At the time of printing, the Committee had not received responses from Juan P. Osuna.] 
61 
62 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. JULIE MYERS WOOD BY SENATOR CORNYN
63 
64 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO JUAN P. OSUNA BY SENATOR FEINSTEIN

[Note: At the time of printing, the Committee had not received responses from Juan P. Osuna.] 
65 
66 
67 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO JUAN P. OSUNA BY SENATOR GRASSLEY

[Note: At the time of printing, the Committee had not received responses from Juan P. Osuna.] 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. JULIE MYERS WOOD BY SENATOR GRASSLEY
76 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO JUAN P. OSUNA BY SENATOR KLOBUCHAR

[Note: At the time of printing, the Committee had not received responses from Juan P. Osuna.] 
77 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO KAREN T. GRISEZ BY SENATOR LEAHY
78 
79 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO JUAN P. OSUNA BY SENATOR LEAHY

[Note: At the time of printing, the Committee had not received responses from Juan P. Osuna.] 
80 
81 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO JUAN P. OSUNA BY SENATOR SESSIONS

[Note: At the time of printing, the Committee had not received responses from Juan P. Osuna.] 
82 
83 

RESPONSES OF HON. JULIE MYERS WOOD TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATORS CORNYN AND GRASSLEY
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 

RESPONSES OF KAREN T. GRISEZ TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATORS CORNYN AND LEAHY
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
138 
139 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
171 
172 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
181 
182 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
183 
184 
185 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
186 
187 
188 
189 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
190 
191 
192 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
203 
204 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
213 
214 
215 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
216 
217 
218 
219 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
226 
227 
228 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
229 
230 
231 
232 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
233 
234 
235 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
236 
237 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
238 
239 

Æ