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. 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. 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. OCIJ monitors immigration courts’ caseload to assign cases to judges within a court.