REPRESENTATION MAKES FOURTEEN-FOLD DIFFERENCE IN OUTCOME: IMMIGRATION COURT "WOMEN WITH CHILDREN" CASES

REPRESENTATION MAKES FOURTEEN-FOLD DIFFERENCE IN OUTCOME: IMMIGRATION COURT “WOMEN WITH CHILDREN” CASES

A third of these cases (14,269 or 32 percent) were closed as of the end of June. The remaining 30,679 cases were still pending. This report is based upon an analysis of these case-by-case court records by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University. Data for the analysis were obtained by TRAC from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).The latest data tracking the processing of “women with children” cases by the Immigration Court’s new priority docketing system provide updated details on how these cases are proceeding. As of the end of June 2015, a total of 44,948 removal proceedings involving women with children had been flagged by the courts for priority scheduling. All of these women and children had already passed their initial “credible fear” screening and had been placed in formal removal proceedings.

This report updates earlier figuresreported by TRACon outcomes in these cases, and the centrality that representation plays.

This report is also accompanied by aninteractive data applicationthat allows users to delve more deeply into the data.

Outcomes in Closed Cases

Results continue to show that the single most important factor in determining the outcome is whether or not these individuals are represented in their court proceedings. For cases concluded thus far, the odds of being allowed to remain in this country were increased more than fourteen-fold if women and children had representation. See Figure 1.

As shown in Table 1, of the 12,266 Immigration Court cases that have been closed without representation as of June 2015, only 2.3 percent were allowed to remain in the country while in 97.7 percent of the cases, the immigration judge issued a deportation order. In contrast, for the 2,003 closed cases having representation, one third (32.9%) were allowed to remain in the country and two thirds (67.1%) received a deportation order.

Unlike unaccompanied juvenile cases from Central America, children who arrive with their mothers are not automatically entitled to a full hearing before an Immigration Judge to decide if they have a legal right to remain in the country. Children arriving with their mothers face expedited removal, typically in a matter of days, unless the family first can demonstrate “credible fear” of persecution or torture if returned to their own country. Analysis here of the current court data follows cases once they have passed this initial “credible fear” screening and have been placed in formal removal proceedings in Immigration Court. Counts are based upon individuals – that is each child and mother – in these proceedings.

Figure 1. Effect of Representation on Deportation

Table 1. Outcome by Representation in “Women with Children” Cases

Outcome	Not Represented		Represented
Outcome	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
Total Closed Cases*	12,266	100.0%	2,003	100.0%
Ordered Deported
Removal Order	11,713	97.7%	1,201	67.1%
Voluntary Departure	275	97.7%	144	67.1%
Allowed to Stay
Grant Relief	23	2.3%	303	32.9%
Other Closure	156		183
Terminate Proceedings	90		131
Pros. Discretion	9		41

* As of the end of June 2015.

Representation by Immigration Court

In cases that have thus far been closed, women and children were represented by an attorney only 14.0 percent of the time. In contrast, individuals were represented 45.9 percent of the time in those cases that are currently pending.

It is to be expected that Immigration Court proceedings where women and children have no representation are likely to reach closure more quickly, and as a consequence make up a larger component of the cases concluded thus far. It is difficult for someone who is not represented, and often does not speak English, to mount a real defense. As a result there is less for a judge to consider and it therefore typically takes less time to reach a decision in the case.

Turning the focus to cases that are still pending and representation rates are higher, the court data show that the availability of representation still varies sharply by Immigration Court. As reported in Table 2, for courts having at least 100 pending cases as of the end of June 2015, representation rates varied from a high of 72.2 percent in the Boston Immigration Court to a low of only 26.7 percent in the Harlingen Immigration Court. Other courts with at least 100 pending cases where one third or fewer had representation included Charlotte (27.0%), Memphis (31.7%), Portland (31.7%), Dallas (33.0%), and Arlington (33.2%).

Table 2. Representation in Pending “Women with Children” Cases by Immigration Court

Immigration Court*	Total	Individuals with Representation
Immigration Court*	Total	Number	Percent	Rank
All	30,679	14,069	45.9%
Boston	623	450	72.2%	1
Hartford	182	130	71.4%	2
Orlando	793	540	68.1%	3
Cleveland	406	268	66.0%	4
Bloomington	172	111	64.5%	5
Omaha	492	307	62.4%	6
West Valley	138	85	61.6%	7
New York	2,122	1,221	57.5%	8
Newark	846	460	54.4%	9
San Francisco	4,154	2,192	52.8%	10
Denver	375	181	48.3%	11
Miami	3,060	1,476	48.2%	12
San Antonio	911	437	48.0%	13
Philadelphia	359	168	46.8%	14
Detroit	156	69	44.2%	15
Los Angeles	2,302	1,018	44.2%	15
Las Vegas	199	86	43.2%	17
Houston	2,705	1,142	42.2%	18
Chicago	1,197	481	40.2%	19
Seattle	1,141	446	39.1%	20
Baltimore	1,689	645	38.2%	21
Kansas City	527	190	36.1%	22
Phoenix	160	57	35.6%	23
Atlanta	518	181	34.9%	24
New Orleans	308	107	34.7%	25
Arlington	770	256	33.2%	26
Dallas	1,003	331	33.0%	27
Portland	669	212	31.7%	28
Memphis	1,159	367	31.7%	28
Charlotte	1,324	358	27.0%	30
Harlingen	101	27	26.7%	31

* Status as of the end of June 2015.