Judge Blocks Some of Trump DOJ’s Sweeping Changes to Immigration Appeals

A federal judge in Washington has partially blocked the Trump administration from enacting a policy that would severely limit immigrants’ chances to appeal deportation orders.

In an opinion issued Sunday, U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss ruled that specific changes to the immigration appeals process, including a significantly reduced appeal deadline, were unlawful because the department issued the rule with no prior notice and without the required period of public comment.

“Issues that are so fundamental to the rights of tens of thousands of individuals … ought to be considered and addressed before, rather than after, a rule takes effect,” Moss wrote.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by a coalition of immigration law firms and advocacy groups. The lawsuit argues that the rule, issued by the Justice Department last month, would “upend immigrants’ rights to due process.”

The policy, slated to go into effect March 9, aims to amend the Board of Immigration Appeals, a panel within the Justice Department that reviews immigration court decisions. The administration says the rule is necessary to deal with the massive backlog of immigration cases and expedite the process of deportation.

The number of immigration appeals has skyrocketed in the past year, as the Trump administration pushes to ramp up deportations. There are currently more than 200,000 appeals pending at the board.

Under the current rules, an immigrant has 30 days following an immigration judge’s ruling to file an appeal with the board. If the board agrees to hear an appeal, the immigrant can remain in the country until a final decision is made, which can take years.

Moss struck down some of the most dramatic changes to the appeal process, including a provision reducing the 30-day filing deadline to ten days. He also vacated a part of the rule allowing the board to summarily dismiss cases without review.

Under these new rules, “one can only conclude that the overwhelming majority of BIA appeals will receive no meaningful consideration,” Moss wrote.

Laura St. John, an immigration attorney who testified in the case, said in a statement Monday that the ruling preserves a crucial protection for immigrants facing deportation.

“As the administration continues to try to deport as many people as they can quickly and often without a fair day in court, it is critical for everyone to have the opportunity to file an appeal,” said St. John, legal director at the Arizona-based Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. “Without this decision, countless immigrants with valid claims would have been hurriedly deported to dangerous conditions, forsaking due process for efficiency.”

Moss’ ruling left in place some procedural elements of the rule, including limitations on the board’s authority to extend case deadlines.

The Justice Department argued in a court filing that the rule consists of “commonsense measures that streamline appellate review of immigration judges’ decisions, including creating a summary dismissal procedure for non-asylum appeals that do not warrant its review and are often meritless.”

The changes “affect only the BIA’s review process,” the department filing continues, and do not impact an immigrant’s ability to appeal their case to the federal courts.

A spokesperson for the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the immigration court system, declined to comment on the ruling, saying the office “does not comment on litigation-related matters.”

But immigration attorneys say that restricting BIA appeals would only serve to overwhelm the federal appeals courts with immigration cases.

If the rule is allowed to go into effect, “you’re going to see a huge onslaught of cases at the court of appeals,” Benjamin Osorio, an immigration attorney, said in an interview. “Circuit courts are not going to be thrilled.”

In a letter filed with the case, 63 former immigration judges and board members urged the court to block the rule, calling it politically motivated and a “radical departure from past practice.”

“The intent of this rule is obvious to us, as former immigration judges and board members: eliminate appellate review in order to issue final removal orders as quickly as possible, allowing the Department of Homeland Security to deport noncitizens before the federal courts can intervene,” the former judges wrote. “This is a political agenda, not fair administrative adjudication, and certainly not due process.”

By LIAM BOWMAN
Capital News Service