Transcription
U.S. Department of JusticeExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewFY 2010Statistical Year BookPrepared by the Office of Planning, Analysis, & TechnologyJanuary 2011Contact InformationOffice of Legislative and Public Affairs5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1902Falls Church, VA 22041(703) 305-0289(703) 605-0365 (fax)DISCLAIMERThe Statistical Year Book has been prepared as a public service by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) andis strictly informational in nature. In no way should any information in the Year Book, in whole or in part, be regarded as legal adviceor authority, or be understood in any way to enlarge upon, or otherwise modify or interpret, any existing legal authority, including, butnot limited to, the Immigration and Nationality Act and Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations.The Statistical Year Book is updated annually. The legend at the bottom of each page reflects the last revision date for thatpage. Yearly updates are available electronically through the EOIR website at www.justice.gov/eoir.
FY 2010 STATISTICAL YEAR BOOKTABLE OF CONTENTSTabFY 2010 HighlightsAImmigration Courts:Total Matters Received and CompletedProceedings Received and Completed by TypeProceedings Completed by DispositionProceedings Completed by NationalityProceedings Completed by LanguageProceedings Completed by Representation StatusFailures to AppearAsylum Cases Received and CompletedAsylum Grants by NationalityDisposition of Asylum CasesExpedited Asylum CasesConvention Against TortureProceedings Completed with Applications for ReliefProceedings Completed for Detained CasesInstitutional Hearing Program Case ProcessingImmigration Judge Grants of Voluntary DepartureApplications for Relief other than AsylumBCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRBoard of Immigration Appeals:Total Cases Received and CompletedSCases Received and Completed by TypeTImmigration Judge Decision Appeals Completed by NationalityUImmigration Judge Decision Appeals Completed by Representation Status VImmigration Judge Decision Appeals Completed for Detained CasesWImmigration Courts and Board of Immigration Appeals:Immigration Judge Decisions (Proceedings) AppealedPending CaseloadXYOffice of the Chief AdministrativeHearing Officer:Total Cases Received and CompletedZAppendix: Glossary of Terms
FY 2010 STATISTICAL YEAR BOOKLIST OF FIGURES AND TABLESPageList of Figures:Figure 1 - Total Immigration Court Matters Received and CompletedFigure 2 - Immigration Court Matters Received by TypeFigure 3 - Immigration Court Matters Completed by TypeFigure 4 - Immigration Judge Proceedings Completed by Completion TypeFigure 5 - Immigration Judge Decisions by DispositionFigure 6 - FY 2010 Court Proceedings Completed by NationalityFigure 7 - FY 2006 Court Proceedings Completed by LanguageFigure 8 - FY 2010 Court Proceedings Completed by LanguageFigure 9 - Court Proceedings Completed: Percentage of Represented CasesFigure 10 - Failure to Appear RatesFigure 11 - Failure to Appear Rates for Never Detained AliensFigure 12 - Failure to Appear Rates for Released AliensFigure 13 - Immigration Court Asylum Receipts: Affirmative and DefensiveFigure 14 - Asylum Cases: Receipts and CompletionsFigure 15 - FY 2010 Asylum Grants by NationalityFigure 16 - Immigration Courts: Asylum Grant RateFigure 17 - Immigration Courts: Affirmative Grant RateFigure 18 - Immigration Courts: Defensive Grant RateFigure 19 - Asylum Completions by DispositionFigure 19A - Immigration Courts: Withholding of Removal Grant RateFigure 19B - Immigration Courts: Asylum or Withholding of RemovalGrant RateFigure 20 - Expedited Asylum Receipts Compared to Total Asylum ReceiptsFigure 21 - Expedited Asylum Receipts and CompletionsFigure 22 - Immigration Court Proceedings: Percent Completions withApplicationsFigure 23 - Immigration Court Proceedings Completed: Detained and TotalFigure 24 - IHP Cases Received and CompletedFigure 25 - Total BIA Cases Received and CompletedFigure 26 - BIA Receipts by Type of AppealFigure 27 - BIA Completions by Type of AppealFigure 28 - FY 2010 BIA Completions by NationalityFigure 29 - IJ Appeal Decisions: Percentage of Represented CasesFigure 30 - IJ Case Appeal Decisions: Detained and TotalFigure 31 - Immigration Judge Decisions (Proceedings) AppealedFigure 32 - Immigration Court Pending Proceedings by Year ReceivedFigure 33 - BIA Pending Cases by Year FiledFigure 34 - OCAHO Cases Received and 4K5L1L2N1O1P1S1S2S2U1V1W1X1Y1Y2Z1
FY 2010 STATISTICAL YEAR BOOKLIST OF FIGURES AND TABLESPageList of Tables:Table 1 - Total Immigration Court Matters Received by Court forFY 2009 and FY 2010Table 1A - Total Immigration Court Receipts by Court and Type of Matter forFY 2010Table 2 - Total Immigration Court Matters Completed by Court forFY 2009 and FY 2010Table 2A - Total Immigration Court Completions by Court and Type of Matter forFY 2010Table 3 - Immigration Court Proceedings Received by Case TypeTable 4 - Immigration Court Proceedings Completed by Case TypeTable 5 - Court Proceedings Completed by Nationality: Top 25Nationalities for FY 2006 – FY 2010Table 6 - Asylum Receipts and Completions by Court for FY 2010Table 7 - Asylum Grants By Nationality: Top 25 Nationalities forFY 2006 – FY 2010Table 8 - FY 2010 Asylum Grant Rate by Immigration CourtTable 9 - FY 2010 Convention Against Torture Cases by DispositionTable 10 - FY 2010 Convention Against Torture Completions by CourtTable 11 - FY 2010 Immigration Court Completions (Proceedings) WithApplications for ReliefTable 12 - FY 2010 Immigration Court Completions (Proceedings) forDetained CasesTable 13 - IHP Completions by DispositionTable 14 - IJ Removal Decisions Compared to Voluntary Departure DecisionsTable 15 - Grants of ReliefTable 16 - BIA Receipts by TypeTable 17 - BIA Completions by TypeTable 18 - IJ Decision Appeals Completed by Nationality: Top 25Nationalities for FY 2006 – FY 2010Table 19 - Breakdown of BIA Detained T2U2W2
FY 2010 HIGHLIGHTS!Immigration court receipts increased by 12 percent between FY 2006(351,051) and FY 2010 (392,888). (Figure 1, Page B2)!Immigration court completions decreased by four percent between FY 2006(366,080) and FY 2010 (353,247). However, completions in FY 2010increased by seven percent from FY 2007. (Figure 1, Page B2)!Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and China were the leadingnationalities of immigration court completions during FY 2010, representing67 percent of the total caseload. (Figure 6, page E1)!Spanish was the most frequently spoken language for immigration courtcase completions during FY 2010 at over 66 percent. (Figure 8, page F1)!Forty-three percent of aliens whose cases were completed in immigrationcourts during FY 2010 were represented. (Figure 9, page G1)!Asylum applications filed with the immigration courts decreased by 42percent from FY 2006 to FY 2010. Affirmative receipts decreased by 35percent while defensive receipts decreased by 56 percent. (Figure 13,page I1)!In FY 2010, the New York, NY; Los Angeles, CA; San Francisco, CA;Miami, FL; and Orlando, FL, immigration courts received 62 percent of thetotal asylum applications filed with the courts. (Table 6, page I3)!Four nationalities were among the top 10 nationalities granted asylum eachyear during the five-year period FY 2006-10: China, Colombia, India, andEthiopia. (Table 7, page J2)!The grant rate for asylum applications was 51 percent in FY 2010. Thegrant rate was 61 percent for affirmative applications and 35 percent fordefensive applications. (Figures 16, 17, and 18, pages K1 and K2)!In FY 2010, the percentage of asylum cases in which either asylum orwithholding of removal was granted was 60 percent. (Figure 19-B, pageK5)!In FY 2010, 25 percent of proceedings completed at the immigration courtshad an application for relief. (Figure 22, page N1)!Forty-four percent of FY 2010 immigration court completions involveddetained aliens. (Figure 23, page O1)Executive Office for Immigration ReviewFY 2010 Statistical Year BookA1Office of Planning, Analysis, and TechnologyJanuary 2011
!The number of appeals to the BIA from IJ Decisions is down for the fifthconsecutive year. (Figure 26, page S2)!Receipts of appeals of DHS decisions increased 99 percent from FY 2009to FY 2010. Receipts of appeals from DHS decisions on visa petitionsincreased 115 percent for the same time period. (Figure 26, page S2;Table 16, page T2)!BIA had a 10 percent decrease in receipts between FY 2006 (39,743) andFY 2010 (35,787). (Table 17, page T2)!Mexico, China, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Haiti accounted for 56 percentof BIA immigration judge decision appeals completed in FY 2010. (Figure28, page U1)!Seventy-nine percent of BIA appeals completed in FY 2010 were forrepresented aliens. (Figure 29, page V1)!In FY 2010, eight percent of immigration judge decisions were appealed tothe BIA. (Figure 31, page X1)!OCAHO case receipts increased from FY 2009 (31) to FY 2010 (91).(Figure 34, page Z1)!OCAHO case completions increased from FY 2009 (25) to FY 2010 (53).(Figure 34, page Z1)Executive Office for Immigration ReviewFY 2010 Statistical Year BookA2Office of Planning, Analysis, and TechnologyJanuary 2011
Immigration Courts:Total Matters Received and CompletedAn alien charged by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with a violationof immigration law is issued a charging document. The most common chargingdocuments are the Notice to Appear (NTA) and the Notice of Referral to immigrationjudge. When the charging document is filed by DHS with the immigration court,jurisdiction over the case transfers from DHS to the Executive Office for ImmigrationReview (EOIR), which has oversight over the immigration courts located throughout theUnited States. Once an alien has been ordered removed by EOIR, DHS carries out theremoval. EOIR does not maintain statistics on alien removals from the United States.During court proceedings, aliens appear before an immigration judge and eithercontest or concede the charges against them. In some instances, the immigration judgeadjourns the case and sets a continuance date; for example, the judge may allow thealien time to obtain representation or to file an application for relief. After hearing acase, the immigration judge renders a decision. The immigration judge may order thealien removed, or may grant relief such as cancellation of removal, asylum, adjustmentof status, etc. If the immigration judge decides that removability has not beenestablished by DHS, he or she may terminate the proceedings.In addition to proceedings, immigration judges consider other matters such asbonds and motions. Bond redetermination hearings are held when an alien in custody seeksrelease on his or her own recognizance, or seeks a reduction in the amount ofbond. In some cases, bond redetermination hearings are held before EOIRreceives the charging document from DHS. During bond redeterminationhearings, the judge may decide to lower, raise, maintain, or eliminate thebond amount set by DHS, or to change bond conditions. Either the alien or DHS may request by motion that a case previously heardby an immigration judge be reopened or reconsidered. Generally, aliens orDHS file motions to reopen or reconsider because of changed circumstances.For the purposes of this Year Book, the term “immigration court matters” includesproceedings (deportation, exclusion, removal, credible fear, reasonable fear, claimedstatus, asylum only, rescission, continued detention review, Nicaraguan Adjustment andCentral American Relief Act (NACARA), and withholding only), bond redeterminations,and motions to reopen or reconsider. Receipts are defined as the total number ofproceedings, bond redeterminations, and motions to reopen or reconsider received bythe immigration courts during the reporting period. Completions include immigrationjudge decisions on proceedings, bond redeterminations, motions, and othercompletions such as administrative closings and changes of venue.Executive Office for Immigration ReviewFY 2010 Statistical Year BookOffice of Planning, Analysis, and TechnologyJanuary 2011B1
Figure 1Total Immigration Court MattersReceived and Completed400,000380,000360,000Total Immigration Court MattersReceipts CompletionsFY 06351,051366,080FY 07335,961329,643FY 08352,159340,599FY 09393,185354,145FY 10392,888353,247340,000320,000300,000FY 06FY 07FY 08ReceiptsFY 09FY 10CompletionsAs shown in Figure 1 above, the number of matters received by the immigrationcourts decreased between FY 2006 and FY 2007 by four percent. The increase inreceipts from FY 2007 to FY 2010 was 17 percent. Immigration court matterscompleted decreased by 10 percent from FY 2006 to FY 2007 followed by an increaseof seven percent from FY 2007 to FY 2010.While some courts showed increases in receipts over FY 2009 levels, othersshowed decreases. In Table 1, on the following page, courts with increases of 25percent or more are highlighted in blue and courts with a decrease of 25 percent ormore are highlighted in red. The immigration court in New Orleans, LA, showed thelargest percentage increase in receipts at 38 percent. The immigration court inGuaynabo (San Juan), Puerto Rico, showed the largest percentage decrease, down 35percent. Table 1A identifies receipts for FY 2010 by type of matter.Table 2 provides a comparison of FY 2009 and FY 2010 completions byimmigration court. Courts with increases in completions of 25 percent or more arehighlighted in blue, and those with decreases of 25 percent or more are highlighted inred. New Orleans, LA, showed the largest percentage increase at 63 percent. EastMesa, CA, showed the largest percentage decrease at 32 percent. Receipts andcompletions showed virtually no change nationwide between FY 2009 and FY 2010.Table 2A identifies completions for FY 2010 by type of matter.Executive Office for Immigration ReviewFY 2010 Statistical Year BookOffice of Planning, Analysis, and TechnologyJanuary 2011B2
Table 1 - Total Immigration Court Matters Received by Court for FY 2009 and FY 2010Immigration CourtARLINGTON, VIRGINIAATLANTA, GEORGIABALTIMORE, MARYLANDBATAVIA SPC, NEW YORKBLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTABOSTON, MASSACHUSETTSBUFFALO, NEW YORKCHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINACHICAGO, ILLINOISCLEVELAND, OHIODALLAS, TEXASDENVER, COLORADODETROIT, MICHIGANEAST MESA, CALIFORNIAEL CENTRO SPC, CALIFORNIAEL PASO SPC, TEXASEL PASO, TEXASELIZABETH SPC, NEW JERSEYELOY, ARIZONAFISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORKFLORENCE SPC, ARIZONAGUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICOHARLINGEN, TEXASHARTFORD, CONNECTICUTHONOLULU, HAWAIIHOUSTON SPC, TEXASHOUSTON, TEXASIMPERIAL, CALIFORNIAKANSAS CITY, MISSOURIKROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDALANCASTER, CALIFORNIALAS VEGAS, NEVADALOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIALOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXASMEMPHIS, TENNESSEEMIAMI, FLORIDANEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANANEW YORK CITY, NEW YORKNEWARK, NEW JERSEYOAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANAOMAHA, NEBRASKAORLANDO, FLORIDAPHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIAPHOENIX, ARIZONAPORTLAND, OREGONSAIPAN, NORTHERN MARIANAS ISLANDSSALT LAKE CITY, UTAHSAN ANTONIO, TEXASSAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIASEATTLE, WASHINGTONSTEWART DETENTION FACILITY, GEORGIATACOMA, WASHINGTONTUCSON, ARIZONAULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORKFY 4,92211,4513,7027,1139,7725,468613FY 2010Rate of 732%3,3450%6,10625%1,84012%120New 03627%9,248-5%5,6543%525-14%VARICK SPC, NEW YORK3,0172,532-16%YORK, tive Office for Immigration ReviewFY 2010 Statistical Year BookOffice of Planning, Analysis, and TechnologyJanuary 2011B3
Table 1A - Total Immigration Court Receipts by Court and Type of Matter for FY 2010Immigration CourtARLINGTON, VIRGINIAATLANTA, GEORGIABALTIMORE, MARYLANDBATAVIA SPC, NEW YORKBLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTABOSTON, MASSACHUSETTSBUFFALO, NEW YORKCHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINACHICAGO, ILLINOISCLEVELAND, OHIODALLAS, TEXASDENVER, COLORADODETROIT, MICHIGANEAST MESA, CALIFORNIAEL CENTRO SPC, CALIFORNIAEL PASO SPC, TEXASEL PASO, TEXASELIZABETH SPC, NEW JERSEYELOY, ARIZONAFISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORKFLORENCE SPC, ARIZONAGUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICOHARLINGEN, TEXASHARTFORD, CONNECTICUTHONOLULU, HAWAIIHOUSTON SPC, TEXASHOUSTON, TEXASIMPERIAL, CALIFORNIAKANSAS CITY, MISSOURIKROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDALANCASTER, CALIFORNIALAS VEGAS, NEVADALOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIALOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXASMEMPHIS, TENNESSEEMIAMI, FLORIDANEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANANEW YORK CITY, NEW YORKNEWARK, NEW JERSEYOAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANAOMAHA, NEBRASKAORLANDO, FLORIDAPHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIAPHOENIX, ARIZONAPORTLAND, OREGONSAIPAN, NORTHERN MARIANAS ISLANDSSALT LAKE CITY, UTAHSAN ANTONIO, TEXASSAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIASEATTLE, WASHINGTONSTEWART DETENTION FACILITY, GEORGIATACOMA, WASHINGTONTUCSON, ARIZONAULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORKVARICK SPC, NEW YORKYORK, 11,4875,333325,326Executive Office for Immigration ReviewFY 2010 Statistical Year 114,902Total 2,888Office of Planning, Analysis, and TechnologyJanuary 2011B4
Table 2 - Total Immigration Court Matters Completed by Court for FY 2009 and FY 2010Immigration CourtARLINGTON, VIRGINIAATLANTA, GEORGIABALTIMORE, MARYLANDBATAVIA SPC, NEW YORKBLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTABOSTON, MASSACHUSETTSBUFFALO, NEW YORKCHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINACHICAGO, ILLINOISCLEVELAND, OHIODALLAS, TEXASDENVER, COLORADODETROIT, MICHIGANEAST MESA, CALIFORNIAEL CENTRO SPC, CALIFORNIAEL PASO SPC, TEXASEL PASO, TEXASELIZABETH SPC, NEW JERSEYELOY, ARIZONAFISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORKFLORENCE SPC, ARIZONAGUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICOHARLINGEN, TEXASHARTFORD, CONNECTICUTHONOLULU, HAWAIIHOUSTON SPC, TEXASHOUSTON, TEXASIMPERIAL, CALIFORNIAKANSAS CITY, MISSOURIKROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDALANCASTER, CALIFORNIALAS VEGAS, NEVADALOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIALOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXASMEMPHIS, TENNESSEEMIAMI, FLORIDANEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANANEW YORK CITY, NEW YORKNEWARK, NEW JERSEYOAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANAOMAHA, NEBRASKAORLANDO, FLORIDAPHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIAPHOENIX, ARIZONAPORTLAND, OREGONSAIPAN, NORTHERN MARIANAS ISLANDSSALT LAKE CITY, UTAHSAN ANTONIO, TEXASSAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIASEATTLE, WASHINGTONSTEWART DETENTION FACILITY, GEORGIATACOMA, WASHINGTONTUCSON, ARIZONAULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORKVARICK SPC, NEW YORKYORK, PENNSYLVANIATOTALExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewFY 2010 Statistical Year BookFY 399,3253,3277,2699,8125,3516692,9977,480FY ,38410,7723,4528,3639,1395,4365282,3507,853Rate of 5%-8%22%4%19%12%63%10%5%-12%-7%-11%-1%3%5%New 70%Office of Planning, Analysis, and TechnologyJanuary 2011B5
Table 2A - Total Immigration Court Completions by Court and Type of Matter for FY 2010Immigration CourtARLINGTON, VIRGINIAATLANTA, GEORGIABALTIMORE, MARYLANDBATAVIA SPC, NEW YORKBLOOMINGTON (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTABOSTON, MASSACHUSETTSBUFFALO, NEW YORKCHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINACHICAGO, ILLINOISCLEVELAND, OHIODALLAS, TEXASDENVER, COLORADODETROIT, MICHIGANEAST MESA, CALIFORNIAEL CENTRO SPC, CALIFORNIAEL PASO SPC, TEXASEL PASO, TEXASELIZABETH SPC, NEW JERSEYELOY, ARIZONAFISHKILL - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORKFLORENCE SPC, ARIZONAGUAYNABO (SAN JUAN), PUERTO RICOHARLINGEN, TEXASHARTFORD, CONNECTICUTHONOLULU, HAWAIIHOUSTON SPC, TEXASHOUSTON, TEXASIMPERIAL, CALIFORNIAKANSAS CITY, MISSOURIKROME NORTH SPC, FLORIDALANCASTER, CALIFORNIALAS VEGAS, NEVADALOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIALOS FRESNOS (PORT ISABEL SPC), TEXASMEMPHIS, TENNESSEEMIAMI, FLORIDANEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANANEW YORK CITY, NEW YORKNEWARK, NEW JERSEYOAKDALE FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, LOUISIANAOMAHA, NEBRASKAORLANDO, FLORIDAPHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIAPHOENIX, ARIZONAPORTLAND, OREGONSAIPAN, NORTHERN MARIANAS ISLANDSSALT LAKE CITY, UTAHSAN ANTONIO, TEXASSAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIASEATTLE, WASHINGTONSTEWART DETENTION FACILITY, GEORGIATACOMA, WASHINGTONTUCSON, ARIZONAULSTER - NEW YORK STATE DOC, NEW YORKVARICK SPC, NEW YORKYORK, 23551046403247443243232919226174Total 20751,14114,899353,247TOTALExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewFY 2010 Statistical Year BookOffice of Planning, Analysis, and TechnologyJanuary 2011B6
Figures 2 and 3 below provide information on the types of matters received and completedby the immigration courts. Proceedings make up the bulk of the courts’ work, but the courts alsoprocess significant numbers of bonds and motions to reopen and reconsider. For both mattersreceived and matters completed the number of bonds has significantly increased from FY 2006to FY 2010 while proceedings and motions to reopen and reconsider have gone up and downthroughout the five year time span.Figure 2Immigration Court Matters ReceivedBy Type500,000FYFYFYFYFYImmigration Court Matters ReceivedProceedings Bonds MotionsTotal06308,652 30,09912,300 351,05107279,430 42,66413,867 335,96108292,013 45,91814,228 352,15909327,928 51,64513,612 393,18510325,326 52,66014,902 392,888FYFYFYFYFYImmigration Court Matters CompletedProceedings Bonds MotionsTotal06324,040 29,74012,300 366,08007273,468 42,31313,862 329,64308281,216 45,12614,257 340,59909290,435 50,33313,377 354,14510287,207 51,14114,899 353,247400,000300,000200,000100,0000FY 06FY 07ProceedingsFY 08BondsFY 09FY 10MotionsFigure 3Immigration Court Matters CompletedBy Type400,000300,000200,000100,0000FY 06FY 07ProceedingsFY 08FY 09BondsMotionsFY 10Executive Office for Immigration ReviewFY 2010 Statistical Year BookOffice of Planning, Analysis, and TechnologyJanuary 2011B7
Immigration Courts:Proceedings Received and Completed by TypeThis section of the Statistical Year Book provides further details on proceedingsby type. As noted in Tab B, proceedings, motions, and bond redeterminations make upthe various types of matters considered by the immigration courts.Until April 1, 1997, the two major types of proceedings conducted by immigrationcourts were exclusion proceedings and deportation proceedings. Individuals chargedby the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (now reorganized underDHS) as excludable were placed in exclusion proceedings. Exclusion cases generallyinvolved a person who tried to enter the United States, but was stopped at the point ofentry because INS found the person to be inadmissible. Deportation cases usuallyarose when INS alleged that an alien had entered the country illegally, or had enteredlegally, but then violated one or more conditions of his or her visa.Provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of1996 (IIRIRA), which became effective on April 1, 1997, established five new types ofproceedings: Removal Proceedings. Under removal proceedings (which replacedexclusion and deportation proceedings), DHS must file a Notice to Appear(NTA) to initiate the proceedings. Credible Fear Review. Arriving aliens with no documents or fraudulentdocuments are subject to expedited removal by DHS. If an arriving alienwho is subject to the expedited removal provisions expresses either anintention to apply for asylum or a fear of returning to the country ofremoval, the alien is referred for a “credible fear” interview by a DHSasylum officer. Aliens found by the asylum officer not to have a crediblefear of persecution may request a review by an immigration judge. If thejudge determines there is “credible fear,” the judge will vacate the DHSorder of expedited removal, and the alien will be placed in removalproceedings. Reasonable Fear Review. DHS has the authority to order theadministrative removal of certain aggravated felons, and to reinstateorders of removal for aliens previously removed. If an alien who has beenordered administratively removed, or whose prior order of removal hasbeen reinstated expresses a fear of returning to the country of removal, aDHS asylum officer makes a “reasonable fear” determination. Aliensfound by the asylum officer not to have a reasonable fear of persecutionmay request a review by an immigration judge. If the judge determinesthere is “reasonable fear,” the alien will be placed in withholding onlyproceedings.Executive Office for Immigration ReviewFY 2010 Statistical Year BookOffice of Planning, Analysis, and TechnologyJanuary 2011C1
Claimed Status Review. If an alien in expedited removal proceedingsbefore DHS claims to be a U.S. citizen, to have been lawfully admitted forpermanent residence, to have been admitted as a refugee, or to havebeen granted asylum, and DHS determines that the alien has no suchclaim, he or she can obtain a review of that claim by an immigration judge. Asylum-Only. An asylum only case is initiated when an arriving crewmanor stowaway is not eligible to apply for admission into the United States,but wants to request asylum. These proceedings also cover Visa WaiverProgram beneficiaries and individuals ordered removed from the UnitedStates on security grounds.Additional types of proceedings include: Rescission. DHS issues a Notice of Intent to Rescind an individual’spermanent resident status, and the individual has the right to contest thecharge before an immigration judge. Continued Detention Review. In response to a United States SupremeCourt decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, a new type of proceeding wasestablished regarding the continued detention of aliens who are subject tofinal orders of removal. In these cases the alien has already been orderedremoved, but DHS is unable to effect the removal (e.g., lack of a traveldocument, no diplomatic relations with the receiving country, etc.). Theonly issue for the immigration judge to decide in Continued DetentionReview cases is whether or not the alien should remain in custody. NACARA. Certain aliens may apply for suspension of deportation orcancellation of removal under section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustmentand Central American Relief Act (NACARA). Withholding Only. A previous removal/deportation/exclusion order hasbeen reinstated by DHS or the alien has been ordered removed(administratively) by DHS (based upon a conviction for an aggravatedfelony) and the alien expresses a fear of persecution or torture if returnedto the country of removal and that claim is reviewed by an asylum officer.The asylum officer has concluded that the alien has a reasonable fear ofpersecution or torture or an immigration judge conducted a ReasonableFear Review proceeding and found that “reasonable fear of persecution ortorture” exists. The immigration judge’s Reasonable Fear findingautomatically initiates a Withholding Only hearing.Executive Office for Immigration ReviewFY 2010 Statistical Year BookOffice of Planning, Analysis, and TechnologyJanuary 2011C2
Table 3 shows all types of proceedings received by the immigration courtsbetween FY 2006 and FY 2010.Table 3 - Immigration Court Proceedings Received by Case TypeType of ProceedingFY2006FY 2007FY 2008FY 2009FY 20103,6484,0304,
In FY 2010, the percentage of asylum cases in which either asylum or withholding of removal was granted was 60 percent. (Figure 19-B, page K5)! In FY 2010, 25 percent of proceedings completed at the immigration courts had an application for relief. (Figure 22, page N1)! Forty-four percent of FY 2010 immigration court completions involved .
