Letter to the Hon. Ronald Vitiello, Deputy Director and Acting Director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Hon. James McHenry, Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review - Velázquez and Serrano Press ICE/EOIR on Cancellation of In-Person Hearing for Detained Immigrants

Letter

Dear Deputy Director and Acting Director Vitiello:

As Members of Congress, we write to express our concerns over the abrupt decision taken by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to substitute in-person hearings for video conference calls at its processing center in Lower Manhattan, New York.[1] This practice is likely to result in substantially negative consequences for immigrants who are attempting to exercise all their legal options prior to being potentially deported from the United States.

Under the announced video conference call policy, it is unlikely that an immigrant in deportation proceedings will be able to receive full and fair consideration of their petition and to meet with an attorney. It may also impact an immigrant's ability to exercise their full rights to attorney-client confidentiality.[2]

Given the deeply concerning nature of this policy and its ability to impact full and fair consideration of petitions and requests, consistent with applicable rules, law and regulations, we ask that you provide answers to the following questions:

1. Your agency has decided that "hearings [have] been canceled because of safety reasons." Please specify what conditions, incidents or potentially harmful risk exists for judges, adjudicating officers, detainees, or officers of the court.
a. How frequently have these conditions interfered with the duties of officers or judges?
i. What steps were taken to remedy such conditions before deciding to cancel hearings?
b. Have such conditions generated any processing backlogs?
c. In your review, how does this policy impact the due process for immigrants?
i. How does your agency intend to provide language interpreters or culturally sensitive solutions for immigrants whose cases will now be heard via a video conference?
2. How many immigration courts in the EOIR system currently use video conference hearings in lieu of in person hearings?
a. Excluding the Varick Street Immigration Court, what percentage of immigration proceedings currently taking place in other immigration courts use video conference technologies?
b. What percentage of immigration proceedings for detained immigrants nationally current take place via video conference technologies?
c. Please provide this information broken out by court location.
3. Absent the alleged safety reasons discussion, under what circumstances is this change necessary?
a. How are these circumstances, if at all, more important than providing immigrants the right to appropriate access to legal counsel that has been provided by the local jurisdiction in question?

Due to the nature of this policy change in New York and its sudden implementation, we request that you submit answers to these questions no later than 15 business days from the date of this letter. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,