Non-Christians Need Not Apply

by Jason Dzubow

According to the Chicago Tribune, a prominent refugee resettlement agency, World Relief, has enacted a policy that requires new employees to be Christians.  World Relief is an arm of the National Association of Evangelicals, an organization that has represented a diverse array of Evangelical churches and parishioners since 1942.  The agency receives about 65% of its budget from the federal government and assists 40% of refugees resettling in the U.S.  According to its mission statement, World Relief empowers the local Church to serve the most vulnerable, and its “staff and volunteers help thousands of refugees – victims of war and persecution – replant their lives in the United States.”  The agency has 23 offices across the U.S., and is the biggest evangelical refugee resettlement agency in America.  From the World Relief website:

In[its United States] offices, World Relief offers legal support, job training and English classes to immigrants.  In Baltimore, a Legal Services clinic reaches out to thousands of clients each year—helping them fill out paperwork, joining them at hearings and ensuring they understand their rights and responsibilities.  World Relief is also engaged in advocacy for immigration and refugee policy. 

One “unfortunate part” of World Relief’s selective hiring policy is that it could conflict with professional guidelines for social workers and clinical psychologists.  As a result, the agency’s mental health unit was forced to close down and refer its clients elsewhere.  Though current employees don’t necessarily have to be Christian, they risk termination if they don’t affirm the organization’s Christian mission statement “to follow Jesus by living holy, humble and honest lives.”  Non-Christian employees in hard-to-replace roles can apply for an exemption, but they must sign the Christian statement of faith if they ever change positions.

Already some employees are searching for new employment and some funders have decided not to renew grants.  The World Relief  interim director, the Rev. Brad Morris, said the hiring policy has nothing to do with the services provided and that he doesn’t see a conflict.  “I don’t believe it’s discrimination. It’s an internal hiring policy,” he said.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Northern Mariana Islands Court Ramps Up

by Jason Dzubow
Who wouldn't want asylum here?

The new Immigration Court in the Northern Mariana Islands is up and running.  An article in the Saipan Tribune reports that “The Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement has filed 30 new removal cases, bringing to 51 the total number of cases that have been filed with the Saipan U.S. Immigration Court since the federalization law took effect on Nov. 28.”

From Tuesday until Thursday, Immigration Judge Philip L. DiMarzio heard the 51 cases, mostly Chinese nationals involved in human smuggling cases.  In what appears to be a blatant breach of confidentiality, the paper reported and named a Chinese asylum seeker who appeared before the court.  For more on confidentiality and Immigration Courts, click here.

Continue reading

We Need More Judges

by Jason Dzubow

Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) has issued a new report confirming what immigration attorneys already know: the waiting time for cases in the Immigration Courts is longer than ever.  From my experience, a typical case in the over-burdened Arlington, Virginia court takes almost two years.  It turns out, Arlington isn’t the slowest court in the land:

From the TRAC website:

Cases awaiting a hearing in the nation’s Immigration Courts reached an all-time high of 228,421 in the first months of FY 2010, according to very timely government enforcement data obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). The current number of pending cases is up 23 percent just since the end of FY 2008, and 82 percent higher than it was ten years ago.

Wait times also vary markedly from one court to the next. At one extreme there are the Los Angeles and Boston Immigration Courts where pending cases have now been waiting for an average of 713 days and 612 days, respectively. At the other extreme, there is the Florence, Arizona Immigration Court with an average wait time of 75 days and the Miami (Krome) Immigration Court with 82 days.

I imagine that the courts in Florence and Miami are faster because those locations deal primarily with detained immigrants.  The courts make detained cases a priority.  Not, as you might expect, because the alien is in detention, but rather because the alien is in detention at government expense. This is made clear when you view the courts’ files, which are prominently labeled, “Detained at Government Expense.”

The problem could be alleviated (or at least ameliorated) if the Department of Justice would begin filling some of the 48 immigration judge vacancies.  Indeed, according to TRAC, since 2007, the number of immigration judges has actually gone down (from 229 to 227) while the case load has increased dramatically.  The backlog has resulted in difficult waits for asylum seekers and others caught in the system.

In a strongly-worded response to TRAC, EOIR Acting Director Thomas Snow calls the report “unbalanced” and states that it fails to acknowledge EOIR’s efforts to fill the vacant positions.  Acting Director Snow points out that 15 judges are in the final stage of the selection process, and EOIR is interviewing hundreds of candidates to fill the remaining IJ openings.  For aliens in the system, the process cannot move fast enough.  To properly enforce the nation’s immigration laws, ensure due process, and fulfill our humanitarian obligations, we need more judges.

Continue reading

1 Comment

ABA Recommends Creation of Independent Immigration Courts

by Jason Dzubow

From Human Rights First:

After conducting a comprehensive review of the U.S. immigration adjudication system, the American Bar Association (ABA) Commission on Immigration released is long-anticipated report, “Reforming the Immigration System: Proposals to Promote Independence, Fairness, Efficiency and Professionalism in the Adjudication of Removal Cases.” The study found that pressures on the adjudication system have grown exponentially in recent years, as the number of people in immigration proceedings has increased and immigration enforcement efforts have heightened. The study recommends the creation of an independent immigration court, either as an Article I court or as an independent agency. It also makes a series of recommendations related to funding and staffing and suggests legal changes necessary to improve the fairness and efficiencies of immigration processes.

The full report is available here.

Continue reading