VIDEO CONFERENCING
A provision in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
(IIRIRA), allows for the use of video-conferencing in removal hearings. There are no
published guidelines regarding the types of hearings appropriate for
video-conferencing or that discuss standards governing the video-conference
technology. Nor are there statutory limitations on the use of video-conferencing.
Immigration Judges (IJs) have discretion to decide whether or not to conduct hearings
through video-conference. Today, video-conferencing is used for both scheduling and
merits hearings in cases of detained immigrants. Video-conferencing often violates a
detained immigrant's due process rights, as it hampers the attorney-client relationship,
interferes with translation, and frequently is plagued by technical complications.
Video hearings deprive detained immigrants of the right to an in-person hearing, where
they would benefit from a better opportunity to establish a human connection with the
IJ and to demonstrate their credibility. This is particularly troubling, as asylum and other
types of immigration cases often hinge on credibility determinations made by IJs.
Video-conferencing interferes with a detainee's right to counsel. It forces the attorney
to chose between appearing in the Immigration Court with the IJ and trial attorney, or in
the detention center with the client. Different, but equally problematic, issues arise from
either choice. If an attorney chooses to appear in the Immigration Court with the IJ, he
or she is unable to communicate in private with the detained client. This prevents
attorney-client conferencing when new issues or questions arise during a hearing, as
well as discussions regarding changes in strategy based on developments that arise
during the hearing. If the attorney appears in the detention facility with the client, the
attorney may not be able to review evidence admitted by the government in the
courtroom or effectively cross-examine witnesses that are in the courtroom.
The location of the court interpreter presents additional challenges. Often, the camera
only captures images of the IJ and or trial attorney, but not the court interpreter. This
prevents the interpreter and the detainee from viewing hand motions or other
expressions that might signal needed pauses in speech or translation, or obvious
confusion on the part of either party. If the interpreter does appear through the
camera, he or she is often far away and difficult for the detainee to see.
Technical problems with video-conferencing, such as sound and picture delays arise
regularly. Practitioners who have experienced video-conference hearings report
frozen or slow-motion images, as well as breaks in volume and loud background
noises that make the IJ, trial attorney, and interpreter difficult to hear.
Solution
The provision of IIRIRA that allows for video-hearings should be repealed. At a
minimum, video-hearings should not be used for merit hearings. Guidance to this effect
should be published. CLINIC encourages practitioners to object, via motion, to
video-conference hearings. (See below). Objection by motion lays an important basis
and develops a record for future challenges of adverse IJ decisions where
video-conferencing interfered with the outcome. CLINIC encourages individuals
interested in bringing such challenges to contact the American Immigration Law
Foundation (www.ailf.org/lac). (1)
1. See "Objecting to Video Merits Hearings," Practice Advisory by the American
Immigration Law Foundation (AILF).
Also:
See AILF's sample motion objecting to the use of video conferencing in a removal
merits hearing.
A provision in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
(IIRIRA), allows for the use of video-conferencing in removal hearings. There are no
published guidelines regarding the types of hearings appropriate for
video-conferencing or that discuss standards governing the video-conference
technology. Nor are there statutory limitations on the use of video-conferencing.
Immigration Judges (IJs) have discretion to decide whether or not to conduct hearings
through video-conference. Today, video-conferencing is used for both scheduling and
merits hearings in cases of detained immigrants. Video-conferencing often violates a
detained immigrant's due process rights, as it hampers the attorney-client relationship,
interferes with translation, and frequently is plagued by technical complications.
Video hearings deprive detained immigrants of the right to an in-person hearing, where
they would benefit from a better opportunity to establish a human connection with the
IJ and to demonstrate their credibility. This is particularly troubling, as asylum and other
types of immigration cases often hinge on credibility determinations made by IJs.
Video-conferencing interferes with a detainee's right to counsel. It forces the attorney
to chose between appearing in the Immigration Court with the IJ and trial attorney, or in
the detention center with the client. Different, but equally problematic, issues arise from
either choice. If an attorney chooses to appear in the Immigration Court with the IJ, he
or she is unable to communicate in private with the detained client. This prevents
attorney-client conferencing when new issues or questions arise during a hearing, as
well as discussions regarding changes in strategy based on developments that arise
during the hearing. If the attorney appears in the detention facility with the client, the
attorney may not be able to review evidence admitted by the government in the
courtroom or effectively cross-examine witnesses that are in the courtroom.
The location of the court interpreter presents additional challenges. Often, the camera
only captures images of the IJ and or trial attorney, but not the court interpreter. This
prevents the interpreter and the detainee from viewing hand motions or other
expressions that might signal needed pauses in speech or translation, or obvious
confusion on the part of either party. If the interpreter does appear through the
camera, he or she is often far away and difficult for the detainee to see.
Technical problems with video-conferencing, such as sound and picture delays arise
regularly. Practitioners who have experienced video-conference hearings report
frozen or slow-motion images, as well as breaks in volume and loud background
noises that make the IJ, trial attorney, and interpreter difficult to hear.
Solution
The provision of IIRIRA that allows for video-hearings should be repealed. At a
minimum, video-hearings should not be used for merit hearings. Guidance to this effect
should be published. CLINIC encourages practitioners to object, via motion, to
video-conference hearings. (See below). Objection by motion lays an important basis
and develops a record for future challenges of adverse IJ decisions where
video-conferencing interfered with the outcome. CLINIC encourages individuals
interested in bringing such challenges to contact the American Immigration Law
Foundation (www.ailf.org/lac). (1)
1. See "Objecting to Video Merits Hearings," Practice Advisory by the American
Immigration Law Foundation (AILF).
Also:
See AILF's sample motion objecting to the use of video conferencing in a removal
merits hearing.
415 Michigan Ave., NE
Suite 150
Washington, DC 20017
202.635.2556
202.635.2649 fax
media inquiries:
e-mail me
(202) 635-5810
Suite 150
Washington, DC 20017
202.635.2556
202.635.2649 fax
media inquiries:
e-mail me
(202) 635-5810
Advocacy Topics
Alternatives to Detention
Asylees and Refugees
Asylum-Seekers
Barriers to Family Reunification
Board of Immigration Appeals
Border Enforcement and Immigrant
Deaths
Citizenship
Consular Identification Documents
Detention
Department of Homeland Security
Driver's License Restrictions
Immigration Processing Delays
Indefinite Detention
Legalization
Local Law Enforcement
Mandatory Detention
National Security and Immigration
Unaccompanied Minors
Undocumented Immigrants:
State/Local Initiatives
Video Conferencing
Voter Registration
Alternatives to Detention
Asylees and Refugees
Asylum-Seekers
Barriers to Family Reunification
Board of Immigration Appeals
Border Enforcement and Immigrant
Deaths
Citizenship
Consular Identification Documents
Detention
Department of Homeland Security
Driver's License Restrictions
Immigration Processing Delays
Indefinite Detention
Legalization
Local Law Enforcement
Mandatory Detention
National Security and Immigration
Unaccompanied Minors
Undocumented Immigrants:
State/Local Initiatives
Video Conferencing
Voter Registration
NATIONAL PROGRAMS | LEGALIZATION | ADVOCACY | RELIGIOUS IMMIGRATION SERVICES | ADMINISTRATION & DEVELOPMENT | TRAINING & TECHNICAL SUPPORT
HOME | CONTACT US | E-MAIL LIST | DONATE NOW
