Complaint: El Paso Immigration Judges Called Lawyers Dishonest, Lazy and Useless
The judges perpetuate “a culture of fear” among lawyers who think their clients will face punishment if the lawyers complained about the judges' behavior.
April 08, 2019 at 04:52 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Texas Lawyer
Immigration judges in El Paso are using court procedures that violate due process and behaving inappropriately by mocking mentally ill asylum-seekers, making sexist comments toward female applicants and calling lawyers dishonest and useless, according to a recent administrative complaint.
Now, one of the lawyers who signed the complaint said she's heard back from the office in the U.S. Department of Justice that oversees immigration proceedings and it plans to look into possible violations listed in the complaint.
“We anticipated the agency would take the allegations seriously, given the systemic patterns of abuse we listed in the complaint are so well-documented,” said Kathryn Shepherd, national advocacy counsel for the American Immigration Council, which filed the April 3 complaint with the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “I also heard this complaint will lead to the agency doing a more systematic review of the immigration court system at large.”
Kathryn Mattingly, a spokeswoman in the DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review, declined to comment.
According to the complaint, between 2013 and 2017, the El Paso Service Processing Center heard 808 asylum applications but granted only 31, or 3.8 percent, the lowest rate in the nation.
Immigration Judge William L. Abbott uses standing orders that impose a page limit on asylum applications, which makes applicants exclude evidence, the complaint alleges. He allegedly requires an applicant to submit evidence for a bond request, which keeps people in detention longer. After submitting evidence prior to a hearing, asylum-seekers can't add evidence later–even though Immigration and Customs Enforcement may do so, alleged the complaint.
No one answered the phone at Abbott's office.
One standing order stops lawyers from appearing at a hearing by telephone, which critics say harms asylum-seeker's ability to hire a lawyer or get a pro bono attorney, since it's so pricey to travel to El Paso for a hearing or to hire local counsel.
Judges are basing bond decisions inappropriately on an asylum-seekers' likelihood of winning a case, rather than their danger to society and likelihood of showing up to court, said the complaint. It alleges that judges disregard evidence, have preconceptions about cases, convince asylum-seekers to drop cases, fail to provide language interpreters and more. Judge Stephen Ruhle and Abbott have stopped lawyers from direct examination of their own clients on the stand, which harms the ability to build a record for an appeal, the complaint alleges. However, judges have let the government's lawyers ask questions, it claims.
No one answered the phone at Ruhle's office.
Judges make inappropriate comments about applicants, such as calling a mentally ill respondent “crazy” and mocking him, or saying a female applicant's attractiveness caused her persecution, the complaint states. Judges have also allegedly called lawyers dishonest, lazy and useless. The judges perpetuate “a culture of fear” among lawyers who think their clients will face punishment if the lawyers complained about the judges' behavior.
The complaint asks the Executive Office for Immigration Review to address the problems by, among other things, repealing and prohibiting the problematic standing orders, and requiring El Paso immigration judges to undergo training in ethics, professionalism, implicit bias and cultural communication. The office should also investigate other immigration courts with problems similar to El Paso, it said.
“Uncorrected, these deficiencies will only fester and weaken the capacity of the courts to administer justice,” the complaint said.
Dana Marks, president emeritus of the National Association of Immigration Judges, declined comment about this specific complaint but noted that generally speaking, when complaints arise about judges' temperaments and their low asylum-grant rates, it could trace back to an underlying problem that her association has long advocated to change.
Marks said the DOJ oversees immigration courts and it takes the position that judges are attorney-employees, subject to discipline if they don't follow instructions for things such as calendaring cases. She argues judges should be independent and overseen by a neutral judicial agency.
“The fact judges are attorney-employees leaves them vulnerable,” she said. “It's difficult to know, but appears when there is a pressure to move cases through faster, many people believe it's easier to deny a case than grant a case.”
Read the whole 30-page administrative complaint here.
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhy the Founders of IP Boutique Fisch Sigler Are Stepping Away From the Law and Starting an AI Venture
‘How to Succeed as a Trial Lawyer’: Talking Shop With Author and Veteran Litigator Stewart Edelstein
Litigation Leaders: Labaton’s Eric Belfi on Running Case Investigation, Analysis and Evaluation In-House
Trending Stories
- 1Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- 2The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 3Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 4For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 5As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250