Court Dates Moved Up Without Warning, Advocates for Immigrants Claim
The New York Immigrant Family Unity Project accuses DOJ immigration officials of moving up detainee court hearings without prior notice, jeopardizing their clients' ability to have counsel present.
March 12, 2019 at 02:26 PM
3 minute read
Public defenders representing detained immigrants due for appearances at the U.S. Department of Justice's Varick Street immigration court in Lower Manhattan say dozens of cases were unilaterally moved up on the hearing calendar without providing attorneys with notice or the chance to respond.
According to the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project, which is made up of a trio of city public defender offices, at least 25 cases scheduled for later this year, some as far away as the summer, were discovered to have been been rescheduled for as early as next week. The providers claim no one from the DOJ or the court reached out to inform attorneys of these changes.
“The Executive Office for Immigration Review's unilateral decision to advance our detained clients' trial dates—without any prior notice or warning—is illegal, unacceptable, and a thinly veiled attempt to avoid true representation of immigrants in the court,” the group said in a statement. “Re-calendaring cases so they are heard well before the scheduled trial date, with no notice or explanation, guarantees that attorneys will not be able to fully prepare and, in many situations, will not be able to obtain needed documentation for the trial.”
A spokesman for the DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review, Jonathan Martin, said in an email that, “EOIR prioritizes all detained cases.” He then pointed to a January 2018 memo from EOIR Director James McHenry III that instructed immigration court judges and staff to prioritize the cases of “individuals in detention or custody, regardless of the custodian” for completion.
“The designation of a category of cases as priority is an indication of an expectation that such cases should be completed expeditiously and without undue delay consistent with due process,” McHenry goes on to state in the memo.
According to immigration attorneys, the DOJ's decision to unilaterally move up hearing dates fits a pattern and practice by federal authorities set on undermining legal representation for immigrants. They point to a similar set of decisions to implement video conferencing for detainees during hearings last year, which is now the subject of a federal lawsuit.
Attorneys claim federal officials have retreated from a previous stance where dialogue was not only possible but a relative norm. Now, they say, DOJ officials have gone completely silent when attorneys attempt to communicate about an issue.
“No matter how many times we reach out to them, it's like talking to a brick wall,” said one immigration attorney granted anonymity to speak candidly about the situation with DOJ.
Attorneys in the immigration organization are now in the process of filing motions in each individual case, asking for the dates to be reset. Depending on the results of these requests, the group is reviewing its options ahead of possible court action.
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 AllAttorneys 'On the Move': Structured Finance Attorney Joins Hunton Andrews Kurth; Foley Adds IP Partner
4 minute readNY Civil Liberties Legal Director Stepping Down After Lengthy Tenure
Former Top Aide to NYC Mayor Is Charged With Bribery Conspiracy
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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