The subcommittee will come to order. To chair is authorized declare recesses at any time. We welcome everyone to todays hearing on oversight of the executive office for immigration review. I recognize myself for an opening statement. Todays hearing focuses on a critical facet of u. S. Immigration policy, the executive office for immigration review is the linchpin of Immigration Law as it administers the u. S. Immigration courts and the board of immigration appeals. The adjudication and appeals is of critical importance to the Proper Administration of justice in this country, and we must ensure that our laws are interpreted as congress intended. As a former immigration practitioner, i understand how important it is that the courts are administered effectively in a way that minimizes fraud and delay. Unfortunately, it has been plagued by management problems that have hampered its ability to operate the courts. During the past administration, the department of justice found that the office engaged in nepotism and other inappropriate practices. These disturbing findings served as a distraction, making it impossible to focus on muchneeded improvements. A 2014 server crash paralyzed the courts nationwide. The policies and practices instituted during the Obama Administration served a decidedly political agenda throughout the federal government. Companion memos to those issued by Homeland Security and prosecutorial discretion raised at a minimum the specter of collusion between the department of justice and department of Homeland Security. The prioritization of recent entrance, including unaccompanied minors, likewise were illadvised and poorly executed. Ignoring the irrefutable evidence of spikes in asylum fraud before the court, eoir chose its focus based on political expediency. The incoming leadership must begin to restore this agency and where necessary overall it. Of concern to this subcommittee is the current backlog of cases. I am appalled that the Previous Administration created conditions that resulted in a backlog of almost 630,000 pending cases nationwide. This number represents a 22 increase in fiscal year 2017 and is simply unacceptable. The Government AccountabilityOffice Recent report on Management Practices and the backlog identified several possible solutions, including reforming the hiring process, and updating internal oversight practices to ensure better docket management. The report noted that continuances were a contributing factor. The report found that from 2006 through 2015 the court saw 23 increase in grants of continuances. I would never suggest continuances be disallowed. Valuable for purposes that essential and Critical Evidence must be collected. The rash of continuances used for the purpose of delay institute an abuse of process that must be stopped. Outlining017 memo continuances is a tremendous step in curbing this abuse. The report further noted the inefficiencies associated with the hiring of additional Immigration Judges. The Trump Administration has called for the hiring of an additional 370 Immigration Judges. I remain concerned that eoir must reevaluate hiring practices and policies to meet even a fraction of this goal. The time between that and initial job posting must be reduced. I have long spoken about the need to modernize our immigration system. One component must be the modernization of Immigration Courts. Eoir currently lags behind other courts in terms of filings and other similar items. This was never a priority for the Previous Administration as the u. S. Immigration courts are one of the last federal adjudicative bodies relying on paper filing. Employing efiling would reduce the need for more filing space and number of lost filings that could lead to unnecessary delays. Eoir relies on other technology such as video teleconference system, but there are concerns that this equipment is either outdated or not operational at all. With the challenges facing eoir today, and the solutions of the new administration, im hopeful we can Work Together to bring real change to the agency and continue the goals of modernizing and reforming our immigration system. Before i recognize the gentlewoman from california, i ask consent to place into the record is statement from judge ashley. Without objection, the statement will be placed in the record. I now recognize the ranking member. The last time the immigration subcommittee gathered for an oversight hearing, we heard testimony from a former director. Suddenly and iy would like to take a moment to acknowledge his life and service to this country. Juan worked for 17 years as a Senior Advisor in the Justice Department for democratic and republican administrations. He was a former board of immigration appeals judge and former associate Deputy Attorney general in charge of immigration policy. Career in remarkable Public Service and will be greatly missed. I would like to extend my condolences to his family over this loss. We are assembled to take a close look at the administration of our Immigration Courts system. The executive Office Currently employs 339 Immigration Judges in 58 courtrooms around the country. Immigration judges have a complex task of making sophisticated legal decisions with decisive speed. Because there is no right to government appointed counsel, judges often have to act as a fact finder and legal researcher to ensure the result of each case is just, fair, in accordance with legal precedent. The difficulty of this is magnified by the severity of the consequences. A judge once said that immigration proceedings are like Death Penalty cases heard in traffic court. This is particularly true for asylumseekers, children, and vulnerable populations. Despite these difficulties, the Trump Administration has taken steps toward imposing quotas on Immigration Judges. This could add an additional obstacle to the immigration judge juggling act by requiring faster case completion with fewer continuances and shorter hearings. States that it is transforming its Institutional Culture to emphasize the importance of completing cases. He claims this will improve the efficiency of our court system, but i dont think it will do more accept increase the number of removals, speed deportations, and increase appeals. Much of the discussion today will focus on the Immigration Court backlog and ways this can be reduced. Congress must fully fund hiring of Immigration Judges, clerks, technology, and infrastructure. The backlog will not be fully remedied by policy shifts alone. The immigration backlog is not one that happened overnight. Fargration enforcement outpaced the funding for Immigration Courts. From 2002 to the present day, funding increased by over 400 . Ice and cbp went from a budget over 20illion to billion in 2017. Eoirs budget increased only 70 . At the same time ice and cbp are funneling cases into the court system, the courts are not given requisite amounts of resources to adjudicate with speed and efficiency. It currently has approximately 640,000 cases pending, and in some courts, immigrants can wait three to five years to receive a final decision. Immigration judges have an average caseload of close to 1900 cases. The average caseload of a u. S. District court judge is 440. Under the obama and Trump Administrations, your implemented policies that prioritize cases at the southern border to the detriment of cases in the interior of the country. Under president obama, your implemented a rocket docket. These cases consisted of children and families from Central America fleeing violence and seeking asylum. Eoir implemented a last in, first out strategy, which meant the removal of immigrants who have been waiting for months or years were further delayed. Under the Trump Administration, they moved Immigration Judges to Detention Centers along the southern border. Media reports that many of these judges sat in empty courtrooms with little to do. Our witness states that the mobilized judges completed approximately 2700 more cases than expected, but what he fails to mention is that the socalled surge of Immigration Judges, over 20,000 nondetained hearings were scheduled. We all agree that our border must remain secure and Immigration Courts must ensure that those who enter our country be afforded due process and a full and impartial hearing, but this cannot come at the expense of Immigration Court backlogs in the interior of the country. One of the primary reasons for the backlog is the continued lack of representation for children and other vulnerable populations. When a child appears in Immigration Court without legal representation, a judge will spend considerable time assessing the child and determining legal options. This is precisely what a judge should do when a vulnerable child is presented without legal representation, but it nevertheless creates delays. The association has explained that when noncitizens are represented by attorneys, Immigration Judges are able to conduct proceedings more expeditiously and resolve cases more quickly. This conclusion supported by outside Economic Consulting firms which found that government funded counsel would country 38 million. Im proud to be the lead sponsor for the fair day in court for kids act. My bill would provide Government Counsel to children and vulnerable individuals. This would help reduce the Immigration Court backlog, save money, and ensure the Due Process Rights of children are protected. I hope my republican colleagues will join me in sponsoring this bill. I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. I would like to recognize the full Committee Ranking member for his opening statement. Thank you. Let my colleague from california no that i am a cosponsor of her legislation with great pride. Committee, and to our distinguished witness, i want to note the passing of juan, who served as the director of the executive office of immigration, and who testified before this subcommittee. Service model of public who devoted the last 17 years of his life to the department of justice. He was a consummate professional known for his leadership and ability to balance access to justice with court efficiency. Im sure he is deeply missed by the department and those that work with him there. Turning to the focus of todays hearing, we have an important opportunity to consider the current challenges facing the executive office for immigration review, particularly under the current administration. With, rather than the rule of law is guiding Immigration Court policy under the Trump Administration, the antiimmigrant ideology. After all, since the early days of his campaign, President Trump has shown troubling disregard for that rule. Hes attacked the judiciary. Issued unprecedented pardon of a sheriff convicted of criminal contempt of court, and fired the fbi director during an Ongoing Investigation by that agency into his own campaign. Pardon me. Unfortunately, the executive office for immigration review appears to have not escaped this brought erosion of rule of law principles based on the administrations policies that threaten judicial independence, due process, and fundamental fairness within our Immigration Courts. Reportmedia accounts that the Trump Administration could impose numerical and timebased case quotas on Immigration Judges. Party this regardless of support measures for reducing backlogs. Quotas are not the solution. Forceimplementation would already overstressed judges to docketsrough lengthy regardless of the circumstances of individual cases. Hearings would become lightning fast, fundamentally unfair, and devoid of due process. A quota system would turn Immigration Courts into a forced march toward deportation. Secondly, the administration issued a memorandum effectively pressuring judges to deny motions for continuances, which often represent a vulnerable immigrants only chance for toaining counsel essential protecting his or her rights. Together with case quotas, this will force many respondents, even young children, to face immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutors without ensures which all but their unjust removal. The executive office for immigration review is moved to strip children in immigration proceedings of other vital protections. In a callous break with prior policy, the office of general counsel issued an opinion concluding that immigration orse may revoke status and safeguards. Increase substantially removal of minors. The common denominators among these measures are clear. More deportations, which is anything but the rule of law. Of law . Instead, these policies undermine that rule and the service of the president s antiimmigrant ideology intended to drive immigrants out of the United States. Our task today must be to gain a greater understanding of how this administrators executive office for immigration review policies [inaudible] serve theey serve to deportation plan. I look forward dialogue withve him on these critical matters. I think the chair and yield back any time that may be remaining. Chair without objection. Thank you. Other members Opening Statements will be made part of the opening record. We have a distinguished panel here today, a panel of one and s written statements will be entered in its entirety. I ask you summarize your testimony. There is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you will have one minute to conclude your testimony. Red, it light turns signals that your five minutes have expired. I will give you some leeway because you are the only witness but do not go much beyond the five minutes. Before i introduce our witness would like you to be stat to stand and be sworn in. You swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . I do. Please be seated. Mr. Mchenry was appointed director for the office of immigration review on may 20, 2017. He served as a deputy associate attorney general. He was previously an Administrative Law judge for the office of disability and review in the Social Security administration. Mr. Mchenry has worked with an attorney for the u. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Mr. Henry earned a bachelor of science from the Georgetown School of foreign service, a master of arts in Political Science from the editor built University Graduate school, and an instructor from the Vanderbilt University law school. I know recognize mr. Mchenry for his statement. ,r. Mchenry thank you chairman, Administrative Law firm, and other numbers. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about the office for immigration review. This is my third stint with the agency during my government career and i have a deep respect for the their mission. For the mission. I returned as an Administrative Law judge several years later. I am serving as acting director you toe to appear before discuss the challenges and opportunities it faces. The mission is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expedition loosely, and uniformly, interpreting and administering the nations admin Immigration Laws. We conduct hearings, administrative hearings, and appellate reviews. The set last several years have raised significant challenges. Practices and changes contribute it to a number of cases. 640,000, which is an alltime high. It has doubled since fiscal year 2012. Addressing the caseload is the top priority for the agency and we have formulated a multifront plan to achieve the goal of expeditiously reducing the number of cases while maintaining due process. We are implementing initiatives toward that goal that im happy to talk about today. We are increasing our capacity by hiring more Immigration Judges. We have hired 61 new judges since january 1 and we are in the process of filling up to 42 additional positions realizing a new streamlined hiring process announced by the attorney general earlier this year. Second, we are maximizing our existing