Immigration Judges Get New Regulations

Under pressure from human rights groups, the Bush administration announced plans Wednesday to improve the performance of immigration judges, responding to reports of intemperate and abusive jurists and complaints about how the system has dealt with a growing backlog of cases.

The moves, announced by U.S. Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, include establishing periodic performance evaluations and implementing proficiency exams for judges who are appointed after Dec. 31.

Gonzales said that he also would seek to hire more immigration judges and to add four members to the 11-person Board of Immigration Appeals.

The moves were among 22 recommendations made by a Justice Department task force that Gonzales established in January to review the performance of the nation’s 224 immigration judges, including 55 in California.

The review was ordered after immigrant-rights groups alleged that judges were wrongly deporting people or denying bids for political asylum because of erroneous evidence or incompetence.

In one instance, an appellate board found that a political asylum case involving an Albanian citizen was mishandled because the judge relied on testimony from a document expert who did not speak or read Albanian. In another case, a judge in Boston was suspended after he referred to himself as “Tarzan” during a court proceeding for a Ugandan woman named Jane.

There have also been concerns that an overhaul of the immigration appeals system, instituted in 2002 by then-Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, denied noncitizens their rights to due process.

Ashcroft implemented measures aimed at helping the immigration appeals board reduce a backlog of more than 50,000 cases.

Responding to pressure to clear the docket, the appeals board, which traditionally worked in panels of three, began reviewing cases individually, often rendering decisions within minutes and without explanation.

The rate at which board members ruled against foreigners facing deportation soared. Those rulings, in turn, led to more appeals to the federal court system, creating another large and cumbersome backlog.

A group of immigrant advocacy organizations had urged the Justice Department to abandon Aschroft’s measures and called for a return to a three-member review process in all asylum cases.

The Justice review found that those measures had brought “much-needed efficiency” to the administrative review process and had helped the board reduce the backlog. At the same time, Gonzales proposed use of three-member written opinions in certain complex cases.

The department also plans to draft a new code of conduct for immigration judges and to institute new procedures for detecting judges of “poor conduct and quality.”

“The review has left me reassured of the talent and professionalism that exists in the immigration courts and at the Board of Immigration Appeals,” Gonzales said. “But there is room for improvement, and I believe these new measures will assist them greatly in their important work.”

Eleanor Acer, who heads the asylum representation program for Human Rights First, said the measures “do not correct all of the harmful changes. But there are important reforms in here.”

“There is a recognition of a need for additional funding to hire additional judges and board members, and many of the changes here should improve the training and oversight of judges,” she said.