Executive Office For Immigration Review: Caseload Performance Reporting Needs Improvement
Published: 2006-08-11T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Within the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ) is responsible for managing the 53 immigration courts located throughout the United States where over 200 immigration judges adjudicate individual cases involving alleged immigration law violations. This report addresses: (1) in recent years, what has been the trend in immigration courts' caseload; (2) how does OCIJ assign and manage the immigration court caseload; and (3) how does EOIR/OCIJ evaluate the immigration courts' performance? To address these issues, GAO interviewed EOIR officials; reviewed information on caseload trends, caseload management, and court evaluations; and analyzed caseload data, case completion goal data, and OCIJ court evaluation reports.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: From fiscal years 2000 to 2005, despite an increase in the number of immigration judges, the number of new cases filed in immigration courts outpaced cases completed. During this period, while the number of on-board judges increased about 3 percent, the courts' caseload climbed about 39 percent from about 381,000 cases to about 531,000 cases. The number of completed cases increased about 37 percent while newly filed cases grew about 44 percent. EOIR attributes this growth in part to enhanced border enforcement activities. The courts reduced the number of proceedings awaiting adjudication for more than 4 years, but did not meet their goal to complete all proceedings more than 3 years old by December 31, 2005. OCIJ relies primarily on an automated system to assign cases to immigration judges within a court. To balance the judges' caseload, OCIJ considers the number of newly filed cases and cases awaiting adjudication from prior years, historical data, and the type and complexity of cases. To manage its growing caseload, OCIJ, among other means, details judges from their assigned court to a court in need of assistance and uses available technology such as video conferencing. According to OCIJ, if it recognizes a pattern of sustained need, it recommends that EOIR establish a court in a new location. EOIR evaluates the performance of the immigration courts based on the immigration courts' success in meeting case completion goals. GAO's review of EOIR's quarterly reports on these goals identified a recurring inconsistency between reports as well as other inconsistencies. EOIR explained that these inconsistencies were due to a variety of factors, including the exemption of different categories of cases from the goals in different quarters, delays in data entry, and programming errors in the calculation of the data. Because EOIR has changed its criteria for cases covered by these goals and only maintained the queries for its current reporting process, GAO could not replicate past case completion reports to determine their accuracy. The inconsistencies indicate that EOIR should maintain appropriate documentation to demonstrate the reports' accuracy.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) estimated  that about 7 million unauthorized immigrants resided in the United States  as of January 2000 and a recent study estimated that the unauthorized  immigrant population was about 11.5 to 12 million in 2006. These totals  include those who entered the United States illegally and those who  entered legally but overstayed their authorized period of stay. Identifying  this increased number of unauthorized immigrants and adjudicating their  cases has placed enormous demands on federal agencies responsible for  enforcing and administering immigration laws. This demand continues to  grow as an estimated 700,000 to 850,000 immigrants enter illegally or  overstay their authorized period in this country each year.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for identifying  and removing unauthorized immigrants who are in the United States in  violation of immigration laws. Immigrants identified by DHS as subject to  removal from the United States are charged by DHS with immigration  violations and given notice that they are to appear before an immigration  judge to address the charges. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ)  Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) through its immigration  courts is responsible for administering and interpreting immigration laws  and regulations in the cases that come before the courts.
Within EOIR, the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ) is  responsible for managing the 53 immigration courts located throughout  the United States, where over 200 immigration judges adjudicated about  350,000 individual cases involving alleged immigration law violations in  fiscal year 2005. The immigration courts are faced with the challenge of  adjudicating their caseload (all cases awaiting adjudication) in a timely  manner while at the same time ensuring that the rights of the immigrants  appearing before them are protected.
In your request, you expressed interest about the management and  performance of the immigration courts. In this report, we address the  following questions:  1.  In recent years, what has been the trend in immigration courts’  caseload?  2.  How does OCIJ assign and manage immigration court caseload?  3.  How does EOIR/OCIJ evaluate the immigration courts’ performance?
To address these objectives, we met with officials from DOJ’s EOIR  headquarters to obtain information and documentation on caseload  trends, caseload management, and evaluation of immigration courts. To  gain a better understanding of the operations and management of  immigration courts, we also visited four immigration courts—Arlington in  Arlington, Virginia; Newark in Newark, New Jersey; and two courts in New  York City, New York. We selected these four courts to include courts  varying in size, based on the number of immigration judges. At these  locations, we observed court proceedings and met with immigration  judges, court administrators, and attorneys that litigate cases before the  immigration courts—attorneys from the Office of Chief Counsel of DHS’s  Immigration and Customs Enforcement and private bar attorneys. We also  interviewed representatives of the National Association of Immigration  Judges, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and the American  Bar Association, Commission on Immigration. For the first objective, we  obtained and analyzed caseload data contained in EOIR’s case  management system. To assess the reliability of those data needed to  answer this objective, we (1) performed electronic testing for obvious  errors in accuracy and completeness, (2) reviewed related documentation  about the data and the systems that produced them, including a  contractor’s report on data verification of the case management system,  and (3) interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We  determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our  report. For the second objective, we obtained and reviewed policies,  procedures, and other documents about caseload management, as well as  staffing data for fiscal years 2000 through 2005. For the third objective, we  obtained and reviewed policies, procedures, and other documents about  the evaluation of immigration courts’ performance. We also obtained and  analyzed EOIR’s case completion goal reports for fiscal years 2001 through  2005 (as discussed later in this report, our review raised questions about  these reports) and reviewed the relevant internal control standards for  such reports. We also reviewed OCIJ’s reports for court evaluations  conducted in fiscal years 2000 and 2004 and EOIR’s data on complaints  against immigration judges for fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
We conducted our work from March 2005 through August 2006 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. (See  app. I for more details on our scope and methodology.)
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Under the authority of the Attorney General, EOIR interprets and  administers federal immigration laws by conducting formal quasi-judicial  proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. EOIR  consists of three primary components: OCIJ, which is responsible for  managing the immigration courts located throughout the United States  where immigration judges adjudicate individual cases; the Board of  Immigration Appeals (BIA), which primarily conducts appellate reviews of  immigration judge decisions; and the Office of the Chief Administrative  Hearing Officer, which adjudicates immigration-related employment cases  such as employer sanctions for employment of unauthorized immigrants.  EOIR was established on January 9, 1983, as a result of an internal DOJ  reorganization. This reorganization combined the BIA with the  immigration judge function previously performed by the former INS. The  Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer was added in 1987. A  Director who reports directly to the Deputy Attorney General heads EOIR.
EOIR’s mission is to provide for the fair, expeditious, and uniform  interpretation and application of immigration law. In support of this  mission, one of EOIR’s strategic goals is to adjudicate all cases in a timely  manner while assuring due process and fair treatment for all parties.  According to its strategic plan for fiscal years 2005 through 2010, EOIR  plans to accomplish this goal by, among other things, (1) eliminating case  backlog by the end of fiscal year 2008, (2) implementing improved  caseload management practices, and (3) adjudicating cases within  specified time frames.
As of October 1, 2005, EOIR had 1,182 authorized full-time permanent  positions. OCIJ was the largest of the three primary components with 789  positions. The majority of these 789 positions (745) were in the  immigration courts located throughout the nation. Of these 745 positions,  225 were immigration judges. The remaining court staff included 45  court/deputy court administrators, 367 assistants/clerks, and 108 court  interpreters.
OCIJ provides overall program direction, articulates policies and  procedures, and establishes priorities for the immigration courts. OCIJ is  headed by a Chief Immigration Judge who carries out these  responsibilities with the assistance and support of two Deputy Chief  Immigration Judges and nine Assistant Chief Immigration Judges (ACIJ).  The ACIJs serve as the principal liaison between OCIJ headquarters and  the immigration courts and have supervisory authority over the  immigration judges, the court administrators, and judicial law clerks. At  the court level, court administrators manage the daily court operations as  well as the administrative staff. Currently there are 53 immigration courts  including 17 courts that are co-located with a detention center,  correctional facility, or service processing center and a court located at  EOIR headquarters in Falls Church, Virginia, and numerous other hearing  locations. The sizes of the immigration courts vary. In fiscal year 2005,  the smallest of the 53 immigration courts (Fishkill in New York) consisted  of 2 authorized legal assistants. In contrast, the largest court (New York  City in New York) consisted of the following authorized staff:   27 immigration judges, 1 court administrator, 1 deputy court administrator,  46 assistants/clerks, and 8 court interpreters.
The immigration judges are responsible for hearing all cases that come  before them, and act independently in deciding the cases. They hear a  wide range of immigration related cases that consist primarily of removal  proceedings conducted to determine whether certain immigrants are  subject to removal from the country. If DHS alleges a violation of  immigration law(s) that is subject to adjudication by the immigration  courts, it serves the immigrant with a charging document, ordering the  individual to appear before an immigration judge. The charging document  is also filed with the immigration court having jurisdiction over the  immigrant, and advises the immigrant of, among other things, the nature  of the proceeding; the alleged act(s) that violated the law; the right to an  attorney at no expense to the government; and the consequences of failing  to appear at scheduled hearings. Removal proceedings generally require  an immigration judge to make: (1) a determination of the immigrant’s  removability from the United States and (2), thereafter, if the immigrant  applies, a decision whether the immigrant is eligible for a form(s) of relief  from removal such as asylum, adjustment of status, cancellation of  removal, or other remedies, or voluntary departure, which is an alternative  to removal. Once an immigration judge orders the removal of an  immigrant, DHS is responsible for carrying out the removal.
As shown in figure 1, immigration court removal proceedings generally  involve an initial master calendar hearing and, subsequently, an individual  merits hearing. During the master calendar hearing, the immigration judge  is to ensure that the immigrant understands the immigration violation  charges and provide the immigrant information on available free of charge  or low-cost legal representation in the area. During the individual merits  hearing, the merits of the case are presented before the immigration judge  by the immigrant, or the immigrant’s legal representative, and the DHS  attorney who is prosecuting the case. DHS must prove that an immigrant is  in the United States unlawfully and should be removed. In most cases, the  immigration judge issues an oral decision at the conclusion of the  individual merits hearing. The immigration judge may order the alien  removed or may grant relief. If the immigration judge decides that  removability has not been established by DHS, he or she may terminate  the proceedings. Once a case is completed, if the immigrant or DHS  disagrees with the immigration judge’s decision, either party or both  parties may appeal the decision to the BIA. If the BIA ruling is adverse to  the immigrant, the immigrant generally may file an appeal in the federal  court system. According to EOIR, if DHS disagrees with the BIA’s ruling, in  rare instances, the case may be referred to the Attorney General for  review.
section_title: Immigration Court Caseload Continues to Increase; Some Progress Has Been Made in Completing Oldest Proceedings Awaiting Adjudication
subsections: section_title: Immigration Courts’ Caseload Increases as More Newly Filed Cases Are Received than Cases Completed
paragraphs: From fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2005, the number of newly filed  cases outpaced cases completed. Consequently, the immigration courts’  caseload increased about 39 percent, from about 381,000 cases at the end  of fiscal year 2000 to about 531,000 cases at the end of fiscal year 2005.  During the same period, in 4 of 6 years, the number of newly filed cases  received was greater than the number of cases completed. The number of  newly filed cases grew about 44 percent, from about 252,000 in fiscal year  2000, to about 363,000 in fiscal year 2005. On the other hand, the number  of completed cases increased about 37 percent, from about 253,000 cases  in fiscal year 2000, to about 347,000 cases in fiscal year 2005. (See fig. 2.)
According to EOIR officials, the annual increase in newly filed cases can  be driven by several factors. These factors include enhanced border and  interior enforcement actions, changes in immigration laws and  regulations, and emerging or special situations.
The greatest increase (about 47,000 or 16 percent) in the number of cases  completed by the immigration courts occurred between fiscal years 2004  and 2005. This increase is in large part because of an increase in the  number of in absentia decisions—in cases where a judge orders an  immigrant removed from the United States when the immigrant has not  appeared for a scheduled removal hearing. The number of in absentia  cases increased about 80 percent from about 70,000 cases in fiscal year  2004 to about 126,000 cases in fiscal year 2005. According to EOIR  officials, in absentia cases require less time to complete because there is  limited or no conflicting evidence for the court to hear and review when  the immigrant does not appear to respond to the charge of removability.
While there has been an increase in the number of immigration judges  since fiscal year 2000, the immigration court caseload has grown at a much  more rapid pace. The number of on-board immigration judges increased by  6 (about 3 percent), from 206 to 212 between fiscal years 2000 and 2005,  while the immigration courts’ caseload increased about 39 percent during  the same period. As a result, the average number of cases per on-board  immigration judge has increased slightly more than 35 percent, from 1,852  in fiscal year 2000 to 2,505 in fiscal year 2005 (see fig. 3). In particular, the  case-per-judge ratios were generally higher in southwestern border courts  where the proportion of in absentia cases is also among the highest in the  country. For example, in fiscal year 2005, the Harlingen and San Antonio  immigration courts in Texas each had a case-per-judge ratio of over 8,000  compared to the average for all courts of 2,505.
section_title: OCIJ Set Goals to Reduce the Age of Proceedings Awaiting Adjudication; despite Some Progress, OCIJ Had Not Met Its Goals
paragraphs: OCIJ has taken steps to reduce the age of proceedings awaiting  adjudication. According to an OCIJ memorandum, in March 2003, the  immigration courts established a priority for completing its older  proceedings. The courts set a series of goals to complete all proceedings  older than 4 years; since then, they have introduced additional goals  targeting proceedings older than 3 years. OCIJ’s goals are summarized in  table 1.
Our analysis of the immigration courts’ proceedings data shows that while  the courts have achieved success in reducing the number of proceedings  older than 4 years between fiscal year 2003 and December 31, 2005, the  courts did not meet their goal of completing all proceedings more than   3 years old by December 31, 2005 (see table 2). At the end of fiscal year  2003, the courts had 13,031 proceedings awaiting adjudication 3 or more  years.  Between fiscal year 2003 and December 31, 2005, the number of  proceedings 6 or more years old was cut about 48 percent, from 1,058 to  547; the number of proceedings between 5 and 6 years old dropped to  about a quarter of its fiscal year 2003 level from 2,375 to 547; and the  number of proceedings between 4 and 5 years old decreased about   37 percent (3,185 to 2,010). However, at the end of December 2005,   9,412 proceedings remained open after 3 or more years.
section_title: OCIJ Monitors Caseload to Assign Cases to Judges Accordingly, and Uses a Variety of Means to Address Growing Caseload
subsections: section_title: OCIJ Monitors Caseload and Assigns Cases to Judges within Courts
paragraphs: OCIJ monitors immigration courts’ caseload to assign cases to judges  within a court. According to OCIJ, in general, the need for court personnel  is driven by the immigration courts’ caseload. Specifically, OCIJ considers  the number of newly filed cases and cases awaiting adjudication from  prior years, historical data, and the nature of the caseload, such as the type  of cases prevalent in the court and their complexity. As newly filed cases  are received, OCIJ said that it evaluates the impact of these cases on the  allocation of resources at the immigration courts. For example, according  to OCIJ, through experience, it has learned that the immigration courts  will have difficulty meeting and maintaining its case adjudication time  goals when immigration judges have more than 1,050 and 1,500 newly filed  cases involving non-detained and detained immigrants, respectively.  Therefore, OCIJ attempts to keep the list of cases that appears on the  judges’ calendars under these levels. In addition, on the basis of feedback  from the courts, the responsible ACIJ notifies OCIJ headquarters of any  unexpected increases in newly filed cases in a given court due to emerging  or special situations, such as mass migration or enhanced border  enforcement actions. According to OCIJ, if a pattern of need emerges, it  reassigns personnel or provides other assistance, if available.
OCIJ noted that the judges’ calendar of cases might vary among courts due  to the type and complexity of the cases received. Thus, the case-per-judge  ratios will be higher in some courts than others. Courts with a high  number of change of venue cases (cases that are transferred from one  court to another court) and/or in absentia cases that require less time to  complete have a higher volume of cases per judge than courts with more  merits asylum cases and other complex cases awaiting adjudication. For  example, judges in the Harlingen and San Antonio immigration courts  located in Texas are assigned a higher number of cases because these  courts have a high number of change of venue and in absentia cases  adjudicated in a given year compared to the San Francisco, California,  New York City, New York, and Miami, Florida, immigration courts, where  most cases are merits asylum hearings that require more time to complete.  In fiscal year 2005, judges in the Harlingen and San Antonio immigration  courts had, on average, over 8,000 cases compared to judges in San  Francisco, New York City, and Miami immigration courts who had, on  average, about 1,200, 1,500, and 2,400 cases, respectively.
Within each immigration court, newly filed cases are generally assigned to  immigration judges through an automated process; however, some  flexibility exists. After a charging document has been filed, either DHS  through an interactive scheduling system or immigration court staff are to  enter data on newly filed cases in EOIR’s case management system. The  case management system automatically assigns newly filed cases within  each court on the basis of the next available judge’s calendar, rotating  through all of the judges to equalize the number of cases assigned to each  immigration judge. In addition, OCIJ stated that court staff has the  flexibility to manually assign newly filed cases to a specific immigration  judge rather than use the automated system. For example, the court  administrator may manually schedule some cases to correct inequities that  occurred in the number and type of cases that were assigned to a judge by  the automated system. Also, cases that are re-entering the immigration  court system are generally manually assigned to the immigration judge  who had initially adjudicated the case. Further, if a judge already has a  heavy caseload, OCIJ officials said that an ACIJ, through authority  delegated by the Chief Immigration Judge, may decide to exclude a judge  from assignment of newly filed cases through the automated system.
EOIR’s Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2005 through 2010 states that it  intends to consider changes in workload, establish better methods to  project future workload, and adjust resources accordingly. Additionally,  EOIR proposes to refine its current caseload management practices to  ensure that cases move through the system as efficiently as possible. For  example, EOIR plans to study the rates at which immigrants are failing to  appear at their court proceedings and to schedule cases so that court time  is used more efficiently. EOIR officials stated they are in the early stages  of implementing the objectives outlined in the Strategic Plan.
section_title: OCIJ Details Judges, Uses Technology, Transfers Responsibility for Hearing Locations, and Recommends Establishing New Courts to Address Growing Caseload
paragraphs: OCIJ’s process for managing court caseload is to monitor the caseload of  each immigration court to identify those courts that are unable to meet  their established goals for timely case adjudication, and provide assistance  to these courts in meeting their goals. According to OCIJ, it primarily  addresses immigration judge staff shortages at immigration courts through  detailing judges from their assigned court to a court in need of assistance.  Details usually occur to cover situations such as emerging needs that  result in a surge of newly filed cases; staff shortages in a court due to  illness, retirements, or annual leave; or the need to hear cases in other  designated hearing locations. OCIJ advertises the detail opportunities to  solicit volunteers. In selecting from the judges that volunteer, OCIJ said  that it considers the needs of these immigration judges’ respective  assigned courts. Volunteers from courts that have heavy caseloads and are  not meeting their goals for timely case adjudication will usually not be  selected. According to EOIR, it does not maintain readily available data on  the number and duration of immigration judge details.
OCIJ also uses available technology to address staff shortages. Many  courts have the capability to use videoconferencing to conduct  immigration hearings in other courts and locations such as detention  centers and correctional facilities throughout the country. As of May 1,  2006, EOIR had videoconferencing capability at 47 of the 53 immigration  courts, and 77 other locations where immigration hearings were  conducted. According to OCIJ, videoconferencing allows immigration  judges in one court to assist another immigration court with an unusually  heavy caseload, on an ad hoc basis. For example, the two immigration  judges in the court located at EOIR headquarters in Falls Church, Virginia,  use videoconferencing to address short-term resource needs as they arise  in the other immigration courts nationwide. OCIJ said that it will use this  technology where available and feasible until this remedy is deemed  insufficient to meet the needs of the courts. OCIJ also said that it has used  videoconferencing as an interim measure while it assesses the ongoing  need to establish a new immigration court. According to EOIR’s fiscal year  2005 performance work plans, ACIJs were expected to increase the usage  of video technology to address case requirement needs of immigration  courts.
In addition, EOIR transfers responsibility for some hearing locations  among immigration courts to more evenly distribute the caseload among  immigration judges. For example, in July 2003, EOIR redistributed the  Detroit, Michigan, immigration court’s caseload by transferring cases from  Cincinnati and Cleveland, Ohio, to the Arlington, Virginia, court; and cases  from Louisville, Kentucky, to the Memphis, Tennessee, court. According  to EOIR, unless the parties are notified otherwise, immigration hearings  continue to be conducted at the same hearing locations in each of these  states, with immigration judges traveling to those locations or holding  hearings by videoconference when appropriate. EOIR stated that these  transfers are infrequent.
When a pattern of sustained need emerges, OCIJ officials said that they  recommend to EOIR establishing a court in a new location, usually a  previous hearing location—especially if there is a significant distance to  travel, along with significant travel costs. A permanent court is usually  recommended if the hearing location can no longer be effectively covered  by an existing immigration court (e.g., if a court fails to meet its goals for  timely case adjudication). However, according to OCIJ, whether a new  court can be established depends on the available resources. During fiscal  years 2000 through 2005, EOIR established three new immigration courts.  For example, in July 2005, EOIR established the newest immigration court  in Salt Lake City, Utah, which was previously a hearing location of the  Denver immigration court in Colorado. EOIR recently said that it will open  a new court in Cleveland, Ohio, in August 2006 and is requesting funds to  open four additional courts in fiscal year 2007.
section_title: EOIR’s Case Completion Goal Reports Contain Some Inconsistencies; Peer Evaluations Used to Evaluate Court Operations
paragraphs: EOIR/OCIJ evaluates the immigration courts’ performance based on their  success in meeting case completion goals and through peer evaluations of  court operations. In addition, EOIR/OCIJ monitors complaints against  immigration judges.
subsections: section_title: EOIR’s Case Completion Goal Reports Contain Some Inconsistencies
paragraphs: To assist in ensuring that the immigration courts adjudicate cases fairly  and in a timely manner—one of the agency’s stated strategic objectives—   EOIR has established target time frames for each of OCIJ’s 11 case types.  Each case type has an associated case completion goal (the percentage of  cases to be completed within the established time frame). (See table 3 for  a list of case types and their corresponding goals.) The case completion  goals were formulated beginning in June 2000, when EOIR’s Director  recognized that not all case types had completion time frames. Some case  types had completion time frames established by law; others had long- standing agency completion time frames, while some had none.  Consequently, EOIR’s Director solicited input from OCIJ regarding the  impact and feasibility of establishing completion goals across all case  types. OCIJ, in turn, solicited input from the immigration judges and court  administrators. Over a 2-year period, EOIR collaborated with OCIJ to  develop case completion goals for immigration courts covering the 11 case  types. In May 2002, OCIJ formally implemented these goals. The courts’  success in meeting the goals for 4 of the 11 case types have been identified  as adjudication priorities and are published in DOJ’s annual budget report  and “Report on Performance and Accountability.” The “Report on  Performance and Accountability” presents DOJ’s performance progress as  required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.
EOIR documents the immigration courts’ success in meeting the case  completion goals for the 11 case types in internal quarterly reports.   According to EOIR, the case completion goal reports are intended to  measure whether the courts are meeting their completion goals, not to  define the total caseload of the courts (all cases awaiting adjudication).  In developing these reports, EOIR management decided to exclude from  the measurement certain categories of cases that, due to extenuating  circumstances, are not expected to be completed within the established  goals. For example, DHS is responsible for conducting background and  security checks on all immigrants in immigration court proceedings. Since  the courts cannot grant an applicant relief from removal until all checks  have been favorably completed, these cases are exempted from case  completion goals. As a result, the number of cases covered by the  quarterly reports is less than the total court caseload.  Additionally,  depending on what cases are excluded from the case completion goals, the  makeup of the cases included in the reports can change from one quarter  to the next. These facts are not clearly reflected in the reports themselves.
Our preliminary review of EOIR’s quarterly reports identified  inconsistencies in some reports. For example, we noted a recurring  inconsistency between reports: the number of cases awaiting adjudication  at the end of a quarter was not the same as the number of cases awaiting  adjudication at the beginning of the following quarter. EOIR provided  several reasons for the inconsistency, as follows: (1) the EOIR case  management system is a live data base that is constantly changing as  events occur to immigration cases in the courts; (2) changes occur to the  number of cases awaiting adjudication from one quarter to another when  categories of cases are exempted from the case completion goals, since  once a case is exempted it is no longer included in the reports; (3) cases  double entered by DHS in the automated scheduling system were deleted;  (4) reconciliations were necessary due to changes to date fields to update  cases in the data base; (5) delays in data entry occurred; and (6)  programming errors occurred in the calculation of the data.
We could not evaluate the reasonableness of EOIR’s explanation; however,  EOIR’s reasons did not appear to explain completely the inconsistency  between the number of cases awaiting adjudication at the end of the  quarter and the number of cases awaiting adjudication at the beginning of  the following quarter. EOIR said that the agency does not use the quarterly  reports to monitor and report on cases awaiting adjudication; rather, other  comprehensive reports serve that purpose. According to EOIR, the case  completion goal reports have a specific purpose: to report solely on the  percentage of cases completed within the goals for the appropriate  reporting period. EOIR stated that it evaluates the case completion goal  data against other sources of data to ensure the accuracy of the case  completion goal data prior to release within the agency, following  established protocols.
We also identified inconsistencies in a 2002 report where the reported  total number of completions did not equal the sum of its components.   EOIR responded to our inquiry about this inconsistency that a  programmer had used the wrong end date for a quarter and therefore  retrieved more cases than should have been included.
EOIR has changed its criteria for compiling the case completion goal  reports over time, as EOIR management has established new  specifications to identify the cases to be included in the case completion  goals. When the agency approves categories of cases to be excluded from  the reports, the queries used to run the reports are updated accordingly.  EOIR reported that it maintains the historical documentation of the  changes it has made to the reports through memos approved by EOIR  management outlining each change in the case completion goal criteria.  However, EOIR does not maintain the individual queries used to run each  of the prior quarterly reports; it only maintains the current set of queries.  As a result, we could not replicate the past reports to determine the  accuracy of the case completion goal data. The inconsistencies indicate  that EOIR should maintain appropriate documentation to demonstrate the  accuracy of data reported by EOIR.
section_title: Peer Evaluations Used to Evaluate Court Operations
paragraphs: Another means that EOIR/OCIJ uses to evaluate its courts’ performance is  peer evaluation—its Immigration Court Evaluation Program (ICEP). The  ICEP was established in July 1997 to evaluate court operations based on  objectives established by OCIJ, identify challenges to achieving agency  goals, and recommend appropriate corrective measures. The evaluation  program seeks to make recommendations for improving court operations  by evaluating the courts’ organizational structure, caseload, and workflow  processes to assess the efficiency of the court in accomplishing its  mission. Judges’ individual hearing decisions are the only aspect of court  operations that are not evaluated.
OCIJ established a Court Evaluation Unit (CEU) to manage the  coordination and operation of the court evaluation program. The CEU  selects courts to be evaluated, notifies the courts being selected, prepares  an evaluation schedule, and sends out pre-evaluation questionnaires.  While the Chief Immigration Judge selects the evaluation team members,  the CEU is responsible for training the evaluation team as well as  identifying a team leader. The evaluation team is comprised of volunteers  of one or more immigration judge(s), court administrator(s), court  interpreter(s), and legal technician(s). The participation of team members  from diverse courts and positions is intended to facilitate the exchange of  information regarding best practices of court operations. The size of the  evaluation team depends on the size of the court being evaluated. For  example, in fiscal year 2004, the team that evaluated the Bradenton  immigration court in Florida, a small court with 2 authorized full-time  permanent immigration judges, consisted of 3 team members, while the  team that evaluated the Miami immigration court in Florida, a large court  with 21 authorized full-time permanent immigration judges, had 13  members. OCIJ has established an evaluation program cycle in which  approximately 10 to 12 courts have been evaluated per year. Each court  has typically been evaluated approximately once every 4 years.
During the onsite visit, the evaluation team gathers information about the  court under review in a variety of ways. The evaluation team conducts  interviews with local court personnel, DHS officials, and members of the  private bar. Evaluation team members select and review a random sample  of court files and administrative records maintained by the court. While  conducting interviews and reviewing court documentation, the evaluation  team assesses aspects of court operations: immigration court initiatives,  security, case management and case processing, DHS/immigration bar  relations, administrative operations, and database management.
As shown in figure 5, the ICEP is comprised of a five-stage process.  Following the week long onsite visit, the evaluation team summarizes the  evaluation findings and recommendations and prepares a draft report for  the Chief Immigration Judge’s review. Within 10 business days of receipt  of the draft report, the evaluated court is to submit written comments on  the draft report. After reviewing the draft report and court’s comments,  the Chief Immigration Judge prepares an action plan addressing the draft  report’s specific recommendations—the action plan clarifies which  corrective actions will be taken, who will be responsible for completing  that action, and the date by which the action must be completed.  Approximately 3 months after completion of the action plan, the court  must submit a written “Self-Certification” attesting to the actions taken to  implement the action plan. After receipt of the self-certification, the CEU  drafts a final report for the Deputy Chief Immigration Judge’s signature.  After the court evaluation process is complete, the final evaluation report  is distributed to the EOIR Director and Deputy Director, the Chief  Immigration Judge, the Deputy Chief Immigration Judges, the responsible  ACIJ, the liaison immigration judge and court administrator for the  evaluated court, the chief clerk of the immigration court, all evaluation  team members, and the CEU program analyst.
section_title: EOIR/OCIJ Monitors Complaints against Immigration Judges
paragraphs: EOIR/OCIJ also monitors complaints against immigration judges, a  practice that began in October 2003, at the direction of the EOIR Director.  Since then, complaint reports have been generated on a monthly basis for  internal use only. According to EOIR, the goal of the reports is to provide a  centralized and comprehensive compilation of written and oral complaints  to EOIR management regarding immigration judges’ conduct on the bench,  as well as the status of those complaints. OCIJ sends the reports to the  EOIR Director on a monthly basis.
Complaints against immigration judges are received from a variety of  sources, including immigrants, the immigrants’ attorneys, DHS trial  attorneys, other immigration judges, other court staff, OCIJ headquarters  staff, and others. They are raised to OCIJ management either orally or in  writing, primarily from the ACIJ with supervisory responsibility over the  affected immigration judge. In meetings with the DHS components and  the American Immigration Lawyers Association, EOIR said that it has  advised them that their employees or members should raise complaints, as  issues arise, to the appropriate ACIJ. According to EOIR, OCIJ is to  immediately notify the EOIR Director when a complaint is filed against an  immigration judge, even if OCIJ has not had an opportunity to verify the  accuracy of the allegation.
According to EOIR, the ACIJ with supervisory responsibility over the  affected immigration judge is the responsible party for addressing the  complaint, unless a referral to DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility  is deemed warranted. The Office of Professional Responsibility, which  reports directly to the Attorney General, is responsible for investigating  allegations of misconduct involving Department attorneys, investigators,  or law enforcement personnel, where the allegations relate to the exercise  of the authority of an attorney to investigate, litigate, or provide legal  advice. Once a referral is deemed warranted, either OCIJ, through EOIR’s  Office of General Counsel, or the Office of General Counsel can refer a  matter to the Office of Professional Responsibility for investigation.  Matters involving criminal or serious administrative misconduct such as  an allegation that a judge had a business relationship with an immigration  attorney are referred to the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General.
According to its complaint reports, OCIJ received 129 complaints against  immigration judges during fiscal years 2001 through 2005. As of September  30, 2005, OCIJ had taken action on 121 of these complaints; the remaining  8 were still under review. In response to the 121 complaints, OCIJ took   134 actions. The actions taken were as follows: about 25 percent (34)  were found to have no merit; about 25 percent resulted in disciplinary  actions against the judges that included counseling (18), written  reprimand (9), oral reprimand (3), and suspension (4); about 22 percent  (29) were referred to DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility or Office  of the Inspector General or EOIR’s Office of General Counsel for further  review; and the remaining 28 percent (37) resulted in various other  actions such as informing complainants of the Office of Professional  Responsibility process or their appeal rights to BIA.
In January 2006, the Attorney General requested a comprehensive review  of the immigration courts, to include the quality of work as well as the  manner in which it is performed. According to DOJ officials, the review  was initiated in part in response to complaints about the professionalism  of immigration judges, including their treatment of the people appearing  before them and the quality of their work. The review included, among  other things, interviews with selected court personnel, private attorneys  and immigration organizations, observations of court hearings, and on-line  surveys of other court personnel and DHS trial attorneys. On              August 9, 2006, the Attorney General announced the completion of the  review and a number of reforms to improve the performance and quality  of the immigration court system. They include, among other reforms, the  establishment of performance evaluations for immigration judges; the  development of an immigration law examination for newly appointed  immigration judges; the hiring of more immigration judges and judicial law  clerks; and improvements in technology and support to strengthen the  courts’ ability to record, transcribe, and interpret court proceedings.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: EOIR and its immigration courts play a critical role in upholding  immigration law. Immigrants depend upon the courts to ensure the timely  and fair adjudication of their cases, and U.S. residents depend upon the  courts to order the removal of individuals from the United States who lack  a legal right to be here. If the increase in caseload continues to outpace the  growth in the number of immigration judges, the strain on the immigration  courts will likely intensify. Given these conditions, EOIR will be  challenged to judiciously manage its caseload and improve its courts’  performance. EOIR has taken steps to improve the immigration courts’  performance. As part of this process, EOIR has used quarterly case  completion goal reports that contained inconsistencies. However, EOIR’s  lack of historical data on the individual queries used to run each quarterly  report precluded our ability to replicate the data and determine the  accuracy of the reports. By better documenting its case completion goal  data, EOIR would enable users of the data, including members of its  management, to better understand exactly what is being measured and the  data’s implications for the courts’ efficiency.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To more accurately and consistently reflect the immigration courts’  progress in the timely adjudication of immigration cases, we recommend  that the Director of EOIR (1) maintain appropriate documentation to  demonstrate the accuracy of case completion goal reports; and (2) clearly  state what cases are being counted in the reports.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: After reviewing a draft of this report, EOIR responded in an e-mail that it  concurred with GAO’s recommendations. EOIR also provided technical  comments, which we have included as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its  date. At that time, we will send copies to the Attorney General, the  Director of EOIR, and interested congressional committees. We will also  make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will  be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report or wish to discuss it further,  please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or jonespl@gao.gov. Contact points  for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report can be found  in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives in this report are to answer the following questions: (1) in  recent years, what has been the trend in immigration courts’ caseload,   (2) how does the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ) assign and  manage immigration court caseload, and (3) how does the Executive  Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)/OCIJ evaluate the immigration  courts’ performance?
To address these objectives, we met with officials from the Department of  Justice’s EOIR headquarters to obtain information and documentation on  caseload trends, caseload management, and evaluation of immigration  courts. To gain a better understanding of the operations and management  of immigration courts, we also visited four immigration courts—Arlington  in Arlington, Virginia; Newark in Newark, New Jersey; and two courts in  New York City, New York. We selected these four courts to include courts  varying in size, based on the number of immigration judges. At these  locations, we observed court proceedings and met with immigration  judges, court administrators, and attorneys that litigate cases before the  immigration courts—attorneys from the Office of Chief Counsel of DHS’s  Immigration and Customs Enforcement and private bar attorneys.  Furthermore, we obtained and analyzed case information contained in  EOIR’s case management system as well as staffing data for fiscal years  2000 through 2005 and OCIJ’s reports for court evaluations conducted in  fiscal years 2000 and 2004. We also interviewed representatives of the  National Association of Immigration Judges, the American Immigration  Lawyers Association, and the American Bar Association, Commission on  Immigration.
To address the first objective concerning the trend in immigration courts’  caseload in recent years, we reviewed data from EOIR’s case management  system, Automated Nationwide System for Immigration Review, and  obtained and reviewed relevant documents, regulations, and policies  pertaining to the immigration courts’ caseload and factors affecting  caseload. We assessed the reliability of those data needed to answer this  objective by (1) performing electronic testing for obvious errors in  accuracy and completeness, (2) reviewing related documentation about  the data and the system that produced them, including a contractor’s  report on data verification of the case management system, and                (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We  determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this  report. From this system, we generated immigration court caseload data  for fiscal years 2000 through 2005 for all cases–-proceedings, bond  redeterminations, and motions to reopen or reconsider–--and analyzed  them for accuracy and completeness. Using SAS software, based on  criteria provided by EOIR, we generated and reviewed unique data at both  the global and immigration court level, on the number of newly filed cases,  cases awaiting adjudication, completed cases, and in absentia decisions,  as well as the age of proceedings awaiting adjudication.
To address the second objective concerning how OCIJ assigns and  manages immigration courts’ caseload, we conducted interviews with  OCIJ officials, conducted site visits to four immigration courts, and  reviewed EOIR’s authorized and on-board staffing data for fiscal years  2000 through 2005, as well as their procedures for detailing immigration  judges. We also reviewed policies, procedures, and other documents  relating to OCIJ’s caseload management. According to EOIR, the staffing  data are from the Department of Agriculture’s National Finance Center  database, which handles payroll and personnel data for DOJ and other  agencies. While we did not independently verify the reliability of the  staffing data, we compared them with other supporting documents, when  available, to determine data consistency and reasonableness.
To address the third objective concerning how EOIR/OCIJ evaluates the  immigration courts’ performance, we obtained and reviewed from EOIR  internal quarterly case completion goal reports for fiscal years 2001 to  2005; documents concerning the establishment and refinement of the case  completion goals; 22 court evaluation reports and related documents for  the 12 immigration courts evaluated in fiscal years 2000 and 2004; and  monthly reports containing information on complaints against immigration  judges received in fiscal years 2001 to 2005. Further, we reviewed relevant  memos and documents prepared by EOIR officials pertaining to EOIR’s  monitoring and evaluation programs, as well as the Department of  Justice’s “Report on Performance and Accountability” and budgets for  fiscal years 2000 through 2005. To assess the reliability of EOIR’s case  completion goal reports, we (1) performed logic testing of the data for  obvious inconsistencies in accuracy and completeness and (2) interviewed  and sent questions to agency officials knowledgeable about the reports.  We also reviewed the relevant internal control standards for such reports.  When we found inconsistencies in the reports we brought them to the  EOIR officials’ attention and they provided reasons for the inconsistencies.  However, we could not evaluate the reasonableness of EOIR’s  explanations of the inconsistencies or the overall reliability of each of its  quarterly reports because EOIR has changed its criteria for compiling the  reports over time and only maintains documentation on the current set of  queries used to run the reports. Therefore, we determined that the data in  the quarterly reports were not sufficiently reliable for purposes of this  report.
We conducted our work from March 2005 through August 2006 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Glossary
paragraphs: A type of relief from deportation, removal, or exclusion for an immigrant  who is eligible for Lawful Permanent Resident status based on a visa  petition approved by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The  status of an immigrant may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his  discretion, to that of a lawful permanent resident if a visa petition on  behalf of the immigrant has been approved, an immigrant visa is  immediately available at the time of the immigrant’s application for  adjustment of status, and the immigrant is not otherwise inadmissible to  the United States.
subsections: section_title: Affirmative asylum application
paragraphs: An asylum application initially filed with DHS’s U.S. Citizenship and  Immigration Services.
section_title: Application for relief
paragraphs: Immigrants may request a number of forms of relief or protection from  removal such as asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the  Convention Against Torture, adjustment of status, or cancellation of  removal. Many forms of relief require the immigrant to fill out an  appropriate application.
section_title: Asylum
paragraphs: An immigrant may be eligible for protection and immunity from removal if  he or she can show that he or she is a “refugee.” The Immigration and  Nationality Act generally defines a refugee as any person who is outside  his or her country of nationality or, in the case of a person having no  nationality, is outside any county in which such person last habitually  resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or  unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country  because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account  of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or  political opinion. Immigrants generally must apply for asylum within           1 year of arrival in the United States. In the absence of exceptional  circumstances, final administrative adjudication of the asylum application,  not including administrative appeal, must be completed within 180 days  after the date the application is filed.
section_title: Bond
paragraphs: The DHS may detain an immigrant who is in removal or deportation  proceedings and may condition his or her release from custody upon the  posting of a bond to ensure the immigrant’s appearance at the hearing. The  amount of money set by DHS as a condition of release is known as a bond.  A bond may be as a condition of voluntary departure at the master  calendar, and a bond must be set by an immigration judge as a condition  for allowing an immigrant to voluntarily leave the country at the  conclusion of proceedings.
section_title: Bond redetermination
paragraphs: When DHS has set a bond amount as a condition for release from custody  or has determined not to release the immigrant on bond, the immigrant  has the right to ask an immigration judge to redetermine the bond. In a  bond redetermination hearing, the judge can raise, lower, or maintain the  amount of the bond; however, the Immigration and Nationality Act   provides that bond of at least $1,500 is required before an immigrant may  be released. In addition, the immigration judge can eliminate the bond; or  change any of the bond conditions over which the immigration court has  authority. The bond redetermination hearing is completely separate from  the removal or deportation hearing. It is not recorded and has no bearing  on the subsequent removal or deportation proceeding. The immigrant  and/or DHS may appeal the immigration judge’s bond redetermination  decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
section_title: Cancellation of removal
paragraphs: There are two different forms of cancellation of removal:  (A) Cancellation of removal for certain lawful permanent residents  who were admitted more than 5 years ago, have resided in the United  States for 7 or more years, and have not been convicted of an  aggravated felony. Application for this form of discretionary relief is  made during the course of a hearing before an immigration judge.  (B) Cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for certain  nonpermanent resident immigrants who have maintained continuous  physical presence in the United States for 10 years and have met all the  other statutory requirements for such relief. Application for this form  of discretionary relief is made during the course of a hearing before an  immigration judge. The status of an immigrant who is granted  cancellation of removal for certain nonpermanent resident immigrants  is adjusted to that of an immigrant lawfully admitted for permanent  residence.
section_title: Cases
paragraphs: All proceedings, bond redeterminations, and motions to reopen or  reconsider that are before the immigration courts.
section_title: Case awaiting adjudication
paragraphs: A case that has not been completed.
section_title: Case completion
paragraphs: A case is considered completed once an immigration judge renders a  decision. Proceedings may also be completed for other reasons, such as  administrative closures, changes of venue, and transfers.
section_title: Caseload
paragraphs: All cases awaiting adjudication.
section_title: Change of venue
paragraphs: lmmigration judges, for good cause shown, may change venue (move the  proceeding to another immigration court) only upon motion by one of the  parties, after the charging document has been filed with the immigration  court. The regulation provides that venue may be changed only after one  of the parties has filed a motion to change venue and the other party has  been given notice and an opportunity to respond.
section_title: Charging document
paragraphs: A written instrument prepared by DHS charging an immigrant with a  violation of immigration law.
section_title: Claimed status review
paragraphs: If an immigrant in expedited removal proceedings claims under oath to be  a U.S. citizen, to have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence, to  have been admitted as a refugee, or to have been granted asylum, and DHS  determines that the immigrant has no such claim, he or she can obtain a  review of that claim by an immigration judge.
section_title: Credible fear
paragraphs: If an immigrant seeking to enter the United States has no documents or no  valid documents to enter, but expresses a fear of persecution or torture, or  an intention to apply for asylum, that immigrant will be referred to a DHS  asylum officer for a credible fear determination. If the asylum officer  determines that the immigrant has not established a credible fear of  persecution or torture and a supervisory asylum officer concurs, the  immigrant may request review of that determination by an immigration  judge. That review must be concluded as expeditiously as possible, to the  maximum extent practicable within 24 hours, but in no event later than      7 days after the date of the determination by the supervisory asylum  officer. No appeal to the Board of lmmigration Appeals may be taken from  the immigration judge’s decision finding no credible fear of persecution or  torture. If the immigration judge determines that the immigrant has a  credible fear of persecution or torture, the immigrant will be placed in  removal proceedings to apply for asylum.
section_title: Decision
paragraphs: A determination and order arrived at after consideration of facts and law,  by an immigration judge.
section_title: Defensive asylum application
paragraphs: An asylum application initially filed with the immigration court after the  immigrant has been put into proceedings to remove him or her from the  United States.
section_title: Detained
paragraphs: Detained immigrants are those in the custody of DHS or other entities.  lmmigration court hearings for detained immigrants are conducted in DHS  Service Processing Centers, contract detention facilities, state and local  government jails, and Bureau of Prisons’ institutions.
section_title: Expedited asylum
paragraphs: Asylum regulations implemented in 1995 mandated that asylum  applications be processed within 180 days after filing either at a DHS U.S.  Citizenship and lmmigration Services Asylum Office or at an immigration  court. The Illegal lmmigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of  1996 reiterated the 180-day rule. Consequently, expedited processing of  asylum applications occurs when (1) an immigrant files “affirmatively” at  an Asylum Office on or after January 4, 1995, and the application is  referred to the EOIR by DHS within 75 days of the filing; or (2) an  immigrant files an application “defensively” with EOlR on or after January  4, 1995.
section_title: Filing
paragraphs: A filing occurs with the actual receipt of a document by the appropriate  immigration court.  lmmigration judge is an attorney whom the Attorney General appoints as  an administrative judge within EOIR, qualified to conduct specified classes  of proceedings, including exclusion, deportation, removal, asylum, bond  redetermination, rescission, withholding, credible fear, reasonable fear,  and claimed status review. lmmigration judges act as independent decision  makers in deciding the matters before them. lmmigration judge decisions  are administratively final unless appealed or certified to the Board of  lmmigration Appeals, or if the period by which to file an appeal lapses.
section_title: In absentia
paragraphs: A Latin phrase meaning “in the absence of.” An in absentia hearing occurs  when an immigrant fails to appear for a hearing and the immigration judge  conducts the hearing without the immigrant present and orders the  immigrant removed from the United States. An immigration judge is to  order removed in absentia any immigrant who, after written notice of the  time and place of proceedings and the consequences of failing to appear,  fails to appear at his or her removal proceeding. The DHS must establish  by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the written notice was  provided and that the immigrant is removable.
section_title: Inadmissible
paragraphs: The Illegal lmmigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996  replaced the term “excludable” with the term “inadmissible.” Section 212  of the Immigration and Nationality Act defines classes of immigrants  ineligible to receive visas and ineligible for admission. Immigrants who, at  the time of entry, are within one of these classes of inadmissible  immigrants are removable.
section_title: Individual merits hearing
paragraphs: The hearing in which the government must prove the charges alleged in  the charging document. The immigrant also is able to present his or her  case to the immigration judge with witnesses and persuade the  immigration judge to use his or her discretion and allow the immigrant to  remain in the United States (if such relief exists).
section_title: Institutional hearing program
paragraphs: The lmmigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 requires the Attorney  General to expeditiously commence immigration proceedings for  immigrant inmates convicted of crimes in the United States. To meet this  requirement, the Department of Justice established the Institutional  Hearing Program where removal hearings are held inside correctional  institutions prior to the immigrant completing his or her criminal sentence.  The Institutional Hearing Program is a collaborative effort between EOIR  and DHS and various federal, state, and local corrections agencies  throughout the country.
section_title: Master calendar
paragraphs: A preliminary hearing held to review the charges in the charging document  before an immigration judge. The immigration judge explains the  immigrant’s rights (e.g., the immigrant’s right to an attorney) and asks if  the immigrant agrees with or denies the charges as alleged by DHS in the  charging document. The immigration judge determines if the immigrant is  eligible for any form(s) of relief, and sets a date for the individual merits  hearing.
section_title: Motion
paragraphs: A motion is a formal request from either party (the immigrant or DHS) in  proceedings before the immigration court, to carry out an action or make a  decision. Motions include, for example, motions for change of venue,  motions for continuance, motions to terminate proceedings, etc.
section_title: Motion to reconsider
paragraphs: Immigrants may request, by motion, the reconsideration of a case  previously heard by an immigration judge. A motion to reconsider either  identifies an error in law or fact in a prior proceeding or identifies a  change in law and asks the immigration judge to re-examine his or her  ruling. A motion to reconsider is based on the existing record and does not  seek to introduce new facts or evidence.
section_title: Motion to reopen
paragraphs: Either party makes a formal request before the immigration court to  reopen the case.
The status of an immigrant who is not in the custody of DHS or the  Institutional Hearing Program.
section_title: Notice to Appear
paragraphs: The document (Form 1-862) used by DHS to charge an immigrant with  being removable from the United States. Jurisdiction vests and  proceedings commence when a Notice to Appear is filed with an  immigration court by DHS.
section_title: Proceeding
paragraphs: The legal process conducted before the immigration court.
section_title: Relief from removal
paragraphs: In hearings before an immigration judge, an immigrant may be able to seek  relief from removal. Various types of relief may be sought, including  asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against  Torture, cancellation of removal, or adjustment of status. Many forms of  relief require the immigrant to fill out an appropriate application.
section_title: Removal proceedings
paragraphs: An immigration court proceeding begun on or after April 1, 1997, seeking  to either stop certain immigrants from being admitted to the United States  or to remove them from the United States. A removal case usually arises  when DHS alleges that an immigrant is inadmissible to the United States,  has entered the country illegally by crossing the border without being  inspected by an immigration officer, or has violated the terms of his or her  admission. The DHS issues a charging document called a Notice to Appear  and files it with an immigration court to begin a removal proceeding.
section_title: Voluntary departure
paragraphs: An immigrant agrees to depart from the United States without an order of  removal. The departure may or may not have been preceded by a hearing  before an immigration judge. An immigrant allowed to voluntarily depart  concedes removability but is not barred from seeking admission at a port  of entry in the future. Failure to depart within the time granted results in a  fine and a 10-year bar against the immigrant applying for several forms of  relief from removal.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Eric Bachhuber, Frances Cook,  Katherine Davis, Evan Gilman, Clarette Kim, Grant Mallie, Katrina Moss,  Sandra Tasic, Margaret Vo, and Robert White made key contributions to  this report.