From the Immigration Policy CenterUpdated Figures Highlight Shortfalls of Prosecutorial Discretion Program
by Ben Winograd
As reported in today’s New York Times, the Department of Homeland Security has reviewed nearly 300,000 pending deportation cases over the past seven months in search of low-priority immigrants deserving of prosecutorial discretion. While immigrant advocates cheered the policy when it was announced, figures released yesterday suggest not only that the program is falling short of initial expectations, but that the numbers are heading in the wrong direction.
While the statistics cited in the New York Times article offer some insight, figures recently shared by DHS provide a more complete picture. As of May 29, attorneys for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have reviewed the files of nearly 290,000 deportation cases around the country. Of those, approximately 8,400 immigrants received offers of “administrative closure,” while an additional 12,300 could receive such offers after clearing a background check. (Accepting an offer of administrative closure essentially means the case is suspended until further notice, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that the case is over.) Of the immigrants given the option of having their cases suspended, about 4,400—or slightly more than half—accepted the offer. After comparing the latest numbers to those DHS has previously released, at least a few conclusions can be made.
First, the number of cases that DHS has offered to suspend is relatively low, especially when compared to the share of cases that were suspended before the initiative began. Even assuming that all immigrants deemed eligible for administrative closure pass a background check, the current rate of acceptance suggests that the initiative will result in the suspension of approximately 10,500, or 3.7%, of the cases thus far reviewed. By comparison, even before the prosecutorial discretion initiative had begun, Immigration Judges had administratively closed an average of 8,000 cases in each of the last five years. Thus, despite the resources that have been devoted to the initiative, the number of cases that are administratively closed may only slightly exceed the number that would be closed in a typical year.
Second, many if not most of the immigrants who have actually received offers of administrative closure are those who would likely prevail in a hearing before an immigration judge. By DHS’ own admission, more than 3,000 immigrants who have declined such offers appeared eligible for “cancellation of removal,” a discretionary form of relief allowing immigration judges to provide permanent resident status (i.e. a “green card”) to immigrants who would otherwise be deported. This revelation not only helps explain why so many immigrants have declined offers of administrative closure, but begs the larger question: if these individuals appear eligible to remain in the United States, shouldn’t DHS support these applications rather than delay the case indefinitely?
Finally, as the case review has progressed, the percentage of immigrants deemed eligible for administrative closure has grown increasingly smaller. (See chart below.) Prior to March 5, for example, nearly 8.0% of all cases were deemed eligible for closure. Between March 5 and April 16, the figure dropped to 6.2%. And between April 16 and May 29, the number dropped below 6%. Thus, while the overall number of cases deemed eligible for administrative closure is 7.2%, current trends suggest the figure may steadily decline, particularly if DHS continues to offer administrative closure to only a handful of the many thousands of immigrants who have been placed in detention.
At the same time, some of the figures provided to Congress provide some reason for optimism. For example, approximately 75,000 immigrants were placed in deportation proceedings between January and April, compared to 85,000 during the same period in 2011. If accurate, the figures are particularly noteworthy because the decline accompanied the ongoing expansion of Secure Communities, which brings additional immigrants’ to ICE’s attention every time the program is activated in a new jurisdiction. Unfortunately, however, the figures provided thus far were limited to the first four months of the two most recent years, and failed to show how many deportation cases had been initiated by each agency within DHS.
In sum, while the initiative on prosecutorial discretion represents an acknowledgment that good judgment should be part of the decision-making process, DHS’s own numbers suggest that it has not meaningfully reduced the number of immigrants facing deportation. While the problems are not beyond repair, DHS must take significant steps to fix them. First, ICE attorneys should extend offers of administrative closure in cases that are consistent with the prosecutorial discretion memos issued in June 2011. Second, when immigrants have applied for relief for which they appear eligible, ICE should not oppose the application. And third, DHS should provide statistics allowing observers to meaningfully gauge the effect of the program—such as the number of deportation cases that have been initiated since President Obama took office, month by month, agency by agency. Although change often takes longer than initially hoped, declarations of success are no substitute for evidence of progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment