Persons illegally crossing the state border, USA, waiting quite a long series of judicial hearings. If an illegal immigrant requests asylum, considering the matter, the court may either deport him or to grant the request.
When the same set of conditions different courts in different States and even different judges within the court of one state may adopt radically different solutions. What is it called? Lawyers say that in many respects it can be caused by the presence or lack of a precedent on a particular matter. Since the burden of proof of innocence falls entirely on the shoulders of the illegal – much depends on the quality of protection in court and the experience of the lawyer. If the lawyer will not be lazy and will find long forgotten by all precedent, to competently present their arguments and provide all the necessary paperwork – the chances of winning and receiving refugee status in times increase.
But there are other cases when the circumstances are identical, the lawyers are trying the same, precedents in the case, and the decisions eventually taken are different. Someone left, and someone, after months of litigation, appeals and cassations, deported. In this sense, looks a very remarkable visualization of Department of justice, the percentage of approval and denials of hearings in deportation cases published by Reuters.
The following table shows the breakdown by the judicial districts and individual judges, which gives an idea about how decisions in cases of deportation vary from city to city, from judge to judge. If you go to extremes, according to Reuters, the judge of Pompano beach Rex j Ford – during his work took 97,66% of the decisions on the deportation of illegal immigrants, at that time, as a judge of the new York – Olivia Cassin took 92,96% of the decisions that allowed them to stay in the States on the rights of the refugees.
«A matter of life or death. … Win or lose in the case of deportation should not depend on chance, from the fact, to what judge gets your case,» says Karen Musalo, Director of the research Center for gender and refugees at the University of California Hastings School of the Law in San Francisco.
Regarding the origin of illegal immigrants, from the analysis of Reuters , it follows that the largest number of deportation orders issued in respect of arrivals from Honduras (83,6%), Guatemala (71,9%,) Brazil (70.9 per cent), Mexico (69,5%) and Haiti (68.9 per cent). More than half of Canadians who arrived in the U.S. illegally (61,96%) are also expelled from the country. A considerable number asking for asylum are deported to the countries of the former CIS and Soviet Union – Ukraine (46.3 per cent), Uzbekistan (44.3 per cent), Russia (38,86%), Armenia (34,39%). And, most surprisingly, according to the Department of justice – 15% of illegal immigrants deported in the USSR. It is, apparently, about those persons who left the Soviet Union in the days of its existence, and then never received the passport of one of the republics.
In connection with such ambiguity taken in relation to deportation decisions in the period from 2012 to 2016 in EOIR received 624 complaints against judges. 138 complaints filed only in 2016, included accusations of bias and also violation of procedure the proceedings and misconduct of judges in the courtroom. However, resentment of «judicial lawlessness» has not led to the desired result. Of the 102 complaints considered by the Commission in respect of all the three judges had taken such disciplinary action as reprimand or removal from office. Even with the 39th were consulted.
