Ohio AILA - EOIR Liaison Meeting (5/11/2106)

Ohio AILA - EOIR Liaison Meeting (5/11/2106)

In attendance:

-Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Shelia McNulty (telephonic)

-Immigration Judge Alison Brown

-Cleveland Immigration Court Administrator Bill Roder

-Supervisory Legal Assistant Andrea Saliba

-Representing Ohio AILA:

• Scott Bratton
• Stacy Cozart
• Jennifer Peyton
• Amy Bittner
• Wayne Benos
• Jessica Larson
• Alex Cuic
• Camille Gill

1) Several members have asked about old 42B cases (some from as far back as 2012) where there has yet to be a decision. There seems to be an inconsistency between judges for issuing decisions in these cases. What is the procedure for issuing decisions in 42B cases after the record is closed? Is there any reason why there would not be decisions is some older cases? (A#’s can be provided for specific examples)

Response: The issue seems to be mainly with IJ Evans cases. The year that Judge Evans spent hearing Cleveland cases has significantly impacted his docket, including his ability to issue decisions on cancellation of removal applications. He is working on getting out decisions in cases where numbers are available.

2)Can you provide an update on staffing at the court? Are there plans to hire any additional IJs?

Response: There are plans to hire additional immigration judges. EOIR is aggressively hiring new judges throughout the United States, including in Cleveland. There will be at least 2 additional immigration judges in Cleveland. ACIJ McNulty said to be patient because the hiring process takes time. The Court has plans to expand to the 14th floor, as well as expanding their space on the 13th floor. After the expansion, the plan is to have 6 courts, with one being reserved for video detained hearings.

There is currently one available legal assistant position. The position has not been posted and Mr. Roder is unsure when it will be posted. He is working on some creative ways to get another legal assistant at the Court. If he cannot get a permanent hire, he will try to get a contractor.

3)Respondent has an approved Form I-360.The I-485 was filed with the court prior to April 29.An individual hearing has been scheduled for after May 1. Theoretically, the visa will not be current at time of individual hearing under the May visa bulletin. Has court received any guidance about these cases? Should we file motion to admin. close?

Response: Judge Brown informed us that DHS will be opposing either termination or administrative closure. Their position is that continuances are the proper way to handle these cases. The basis for their position is that they want to be able to track the cases. Judge Brown will not be terminating these cases but said that we could go ahead and a file an administrative closure motion. Judge Brown is working on developing a plan for handling these SJIS cases where the priority date is not current. There is currently no formal guidance on this issue.

4)It is my understanding that OCC has some computer access to the court's docket or records such that they do not need to call the 800 status line to find out the limited information they are provided. Is this true and if so why do they have such access and we don't?

Response: ACIJ McNulty said that she would look into this matter and provide us an answer.

5)Is there any way to conduct a file review with the court without filing an E-28, which puts us on the hook for the entirecase? There are times with detained respondents where I need to review the court’s file quickly to determine whether I want to take the case since there is no time for a FOIA. However, filing an E-28 puts me on the hook for the whole case. Is there a way that I could review the file without becoming the attorney of record on the case?

Response: Mr. Roder said that they do not have the staff to allow for file reviews where the attorney is not the attorney of record. The Court’s policy is that an attorney must submit an E-28 to review any file or to request a CD. Mr. Roder pointed out that the attorney is on the hook for the case once an E-28 is filed. The attorney can move to withdraw after the file review, but there is no guarantee that the motion to withdraw will be granted.

6)Why are some I-589s being given an expedited date automatically even when the attorney does not want one while in others the IJ offers an expedited date for the attorney to accept or decline?

Response: If it is crystal clear that the law is settled as to a particular claim, the IJs may give an expedited date even if respondent does not request an expedited hearing. Cases are also being expedited where the respondent is on an ankle monitor.

7)It seems that the court is not ruling on motions until close to the time the case is scheduled for a hearing (or the motion is not making it to the court’s file at all). An example of when this can be a problem is in cases where motions to substitute and motions to withdraw as counsel are filed. The old attorney gets any correspondence from the court such as new hearing notices or the pink sheets despite a motion to substitute/motion to withdraw counsel being properly filed well in advance. Is there any way that we can get a ruling on these motions sooner?

Response: The court receives a significant amount of mail. Due to the court being understaffed, they prioritize the mail by the type of filing and hearing date. All filings are time-stamped when received. However, they are not always entered into the system right away. Motions to substitute and withdraw are not priorities.

If you have not received a decision on a motion that has been pending a long time, feel free to contact the court.

8)Is it EOIR Cleveland policy that where a motion to withdraw was filed and granted for an upcoming individual hearing, the case is now set for a master, and the individual disappears?

Response: The Judges are setting these cases for master hearings to see if the respondent has new counsel. However, at least Judge Evans is generally also keeping the individual hearing date.

9)Is there any implementation in Cleveland EOIR of assigned counsel for mentally ill pro se detainees?

Response: This is done on a case-by-case basis. ACIJ McNulty indicated that a nationwide policy on this issue is expected to be implemented very soon.

Other issues addressed:

• The Republican National Convention in Cleveland (July 18-22, 2016)

The Court is finalizing its plans for operation during the Convention. This will be circulated to the Chapter upon receipt. Mr. Roder did say that the court will be operating with a skeletal staff and to try to minimize filings and phone calls during that week. If there are filings due that week, it would be best to file the documents the week before. If something has to be filed that week, the best thing to do would be to file it by mail rather than in person at the court.

• EOIR just started (in 3 cities) having armed bailiffs in all the courtrooms. This will be coming to the Cleveland court soon.

• CDs of hearings: Any request for a CD of a hearing should be made to Bill Roder. He said to try to make any request 2-3 weeks in advance by email. If it is a newer hearing recorded on DAR, the court will provide the CD. If the hearing is older and was tape recorded, you are responsible for providing tapes.

• Record reviews are on Fridays for Cleveland attorneys. Mr. Roder will do his best to accommodate out-of-town attorneys to fit their schedules when they are here for court. He said to try to give him as much notice as possible.