Day 3 in El Paso (Part II): Observing Removal Hearings

As I blogged previously, the third day of the border course in El Paso focused on understanding the federal government’s power to remove noncitizens from the United States. We spent most of our afternoon on May 21 observing non-detained cases in immigration court in downtown El Paso.  We heard several cases in which virtually all the respondents were found removable. Almost all of the respondents were represented by counsel. At least two noncitizens were removed in abstentia while we were there.  

What I found most interesting about this visit is the way in which both prosecutorial discretion and DACA were mentioned in virtually every case. (That was not the case last year when I was here).  Indeed, in one of the cases in which removability was conceded, the ICE lawyer (without being asked by the judge) explained to the court that the government was currently exploring prosecutorial discretion for the respondent. The respondent was given more time in order to explore the option of either pursuing cancellation of removal (for which he may be eligible) or seeking prosecutorial discretion.

In between the cases, the judge asked the ICE lawyer and local lawyers in the room to talk to my students about practicing immigration law. One of the local lawyers talked about the difficulty of obtaining cancellation of removal for his clients because the standard of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” is hard to meet. Thus, obtaining prosecutorial discretion, despite the fact that it does not lead to lawful permanent residence as cancellation of removal does, offer a better option (albeit a temporary one) for some of his clients.  The lawyers also talked about how immigration law is in flux and how much both DACA and prosecutorial discretion has changed their practice. The students asked about the rate of approvals for DACA cases in El Paso and were told that the rate was somewhere around 99.2 percent (down from 99.5 percent last month). 

The day ended on a good note. A 42-year old noncitizen who committed fraud when he applied for family-based immigration was found deportable; however, the judge granted cancellation of removal. The noncitizen’s wife was there when the judge announced his decision and they later brought in their children. The judge explained to the kids that their father will get to stay in the United States. 

RCV