Addressing the backlog of cases. This is about 90 minutes. The subcommittee on immigration and Border Security will come to order. We welcome everyone to todays hearing on oversight of the executive office for immigration review and now i have recognized myself for an Opening Statement. Today ice hearing focuses on a critical facet of u. S. Immigration policy. The executive office for immigration review or eoir is the linchpin of Immigration Law as it administers among other components the u. S. Immigration courts and the board of immigration appeals. The adjudication and appeals of immigration matters is of critical importance to the Proper Administration of justice in this country and we must ensure that our Immigration Laws are interpreted as congress intended. As a former immigration practitioner who regularly appeared in Immigration Court, i certainly understand and appreciate just how important tts that the courts are administered effectively and in a way that maximizings docket management and minimizes fraud and delay. Unfortunately, eoir has been plagued by management problems that have consistently hampered its ability to operate the courts. Through the past administration, the department of justices Inspector Generals Office found that the office engaged in nepotism and other inappropriate practices. These disturbing findings serve as a distraction for eoir making it impossible to focus on muchneeded improvements. Additionally, a 2014 server crash paralyzed the courts nationwide for several weekser again necessitating the allocation of resources away from management and oversight of the agency. The policies and practices instituted during the Obama Administration served a decidedly political ageneral da throughout the federal government and eoir was not spared. Administrative closure policies raised at a minimum the specter of collusion between the department of justice and the department of Homeland Security. The prior tieization of recent sbranlts including the surgings of una i companied minors and family units likewise were illadvised and poorly executed. Ignoring the irrefutable evidence of spikes and asylum fraud before the court eoir chose its focus based on political expead indian si rather than judicial prudence. It is against this backdrop that the incoming leadership must begin to restore this agency and where necessary needs to overhaul it. Of utmost concern to this subcommittee is the current backlog of pending cases. I am appalled but really not surprised that the Previous Administration created conditions that ultimately resulted in a backlog of almost 630,000 pending cases nationwide. This number remit represents a 22 increase in fiscal year 2017 and is simply unacceptable. The Government Accountability offices recent report at Management Practices at eoir and the backlog identified several possible Solutions Including reforming the highend process for Immigration Judges and updating internal oversight practices to ensure better docket management. The gao report noted that continuances were a contributing factor the backlog. The report found that from 2006 through 2015 the court saw 23 increase in the grants of continuances. I would never suggest that continuances be disallowed. They can be valuable for attorney preparation. I have experienced that myself for purposes and are essential and Critical Evidence must still be collected. However, the rash of continuances used for the purposes of delay constitute an abusive process that must be stopped. The july 2017 memo from chief judge mary beth keler outlining eoirs continuance is a tremendous step in curing this abuse but represents on the one of the solutions to reduce the number of pending cases. The gao report further noted the inefficiencies associated with the hiring of additional Immigration Judges. As your written testimony acknowledged the Trump Administration through its immigration principles has called for the hiring of an additional 370 Immigration Judges. I remain concerned that eoir must reevaluate hiring practices and processes to meet even a fraction of this goal. The time between an initial job posting to the actual onboarding of a judge must be reduced. Finally, i have long spoken about the need to modernize our immigration system. One of the key components must be the modernization of our Immigration Courts. Eoir currently lags behind other federal courts in terms of basic items susms 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 remaining federal adjudicative bodies relying on paper filings. Employing an efiling system would drastically reduce the need for more filing space and overall reduce the number of lost filings that could lead to unnecessary delays. In addition, eoir relies on other technology such as video teleconference system, but there are concerns this equipment is either outdated in some locations or not operational at all in others. With the challenges facing eoir today, and the solutions of the new administration, i am hopeful that 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 gentle woman from california, i would ask unanimous consent to place into the record a statement from judge ashley tabador, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. Without objection, it will be placed in the record. I now recognize our ranking member, miss lockran, of california, for Opening Statement. The last time the immigration subcommittee gathered for an eoir oversight hearing we heard testimony from the former eoir director, juan asioux that. In august of this year he passed away suddenly and id like to take a moment to acknowledge his life and service to this country. Juan worked for 17 years as a senior immigration Legal Adviser in the Justice Department for both democratic and republican administrations. He was a former board of immigration appeals judge and former Social SecurityDeputy Attorney general in charge of immigration policy at the department of justice. Juan had a remarkable career in Public Service and he will be greatly missed. And i would like to extend my heart felt condolences to his family over this loss. We are assembled here now to take a close look at the administration of our Immigration Court system. The executive office of immigration review currently employs 339 Immigration Judges in 58 courtrooms around the country. Immigration judges have a complex, often thankless task of making sophisticated legal decisions with decisive speed. Because there is no right to governmentappointed counsel, Immigration Judges often have to act as a fact finder and legal researcher to ensure the result in each case is just, fair, in accordance with legal precedent. The difficulty of this task is magnified by the severity of the consequences. Immigration judge dana lee marks once said immigration proceedings are, quote, like Death Penalty cases heard in traffic court. This is particularly true for asylum seekers, children and other vulnerable populations. Despite these difficulties the Trump Administration has taken steps towards imposing numeric and performance quotas on Immigration Judges. This could add an additional obstacle to the immigration judge juggling act by requiring faster case completions with fewer continuances and shorter evidentiary hearings. In his written testimony our witness states that eoir is transforming its Institutional Culture emphasizing the importance of completing cases. It claims it will improve the efficiency of our court system. I dont think it will do more except increase the number of immigration removals, speedy deportations and also increase appeals in our federal court system. Much of the discussion today will focus on the Immigration Court backlog and ways this can be reduced. I want to start by saying Congress Must fully fund hiring of Immigration Judges, law clerks, technology and infrastructure. The Immigration Court backlog will not be fully remedied by policy shifts alone. It must include sufficient appropriations. But the immigration backlog is not one that happened overnight. There are reasons for the backlog. First, Immigration Enforcement specifically funding for i. C. E. And cbp far outweighs funding from immigration quarts. From 2002 to funding day, funding increased by over 400 . I. C. E. And cbp went from 4. 5 billion in 2002 to over 20 billion in 2017. In contrast eoars budget increased only 70 . This means that at the same time i. C. E. And cbp are funneling immigration into the court system, the courts are not given requisite resources to adjudicate with speed and efficiency, its created a massive bottleneck and backlogs which were seeing today. Eoir currently has 640,000 cases pending. Some courts a person can wait three to five years to receive a final decision on their case. Immigration judges have an average case load of close to 1,900 case. For we were theive, average case load of u. S. District court judge 440. Second under obama and Trump Administration, the prioritizes cases at the southern border to the detriment of cases in the interior of the country. Under president obama eoir implemented a rocket docket that expedited cases of recent border crossings. These cases primarily consisted of children and families from Central America fleeing violence and seeking asylum. Eoir implemented a last in, first out strategy. Removal cases of immigrants who had been waiting for months or years were further delayed. Now, under the Trump Administration eoir moved Immigration Judges from already backlogged courts to Detention Centers along the southern border. New speedy reports, many judges sat in empty courtrooms with little to do. In his written testimony our witness states the mobilized judges completed approximately 2,700 more cases than expected if they had not been detailed, but what he fails to mention is that the socalled surge of Immigration Judges over 20,000 nondetained Immigration Court hearings were rescheduled. We all agree that our border must remain secure and Immigration Courts must ensure that those who enter our country speaking protection be afforded due process. This cannot come at the expense of Immigration Court backlogs in the interior of the country. Lastly, one of the primary reasons for the Immigration Court backlog is the continued lack of representation, particularly for children and other vulnerable populations. When a respondent, particularly a child, appears in Immigration Court without legal representation, an immigration judge will spend a considerable amount of time assessing the child and determining her legal options. This is precisely what a judge should do when a vulnerable child is presented in a courtroom without legal representation, but it nevertheless creates delays for other respondents. The National Association of Immigration Judges has explained that, quote, when noncitizens are represented by attorneys, Immigration Judges are able to conduct proceedings more expeditiously and resolve cases more quickly. This conclusion is supported by outside Economic Consulting firms which found that governmentfunded counsel would save the country 38 million through expedited hearing processes and reduced detention. Im proud to be the lead sponsor for fair day in court for kids act. It would provide counsel for children and vulnerable individuals. This would help reduce the backlog, save the government money and ensure the Due Process Rights of children are protected. I hope my republican colleagues will join me in sponsoring this bill and i look forward to a substantive discussion on Immigration Court system today. I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, ms. Lofgren. I would like to recognize the full Committee Ranking member, mr. Conyers of michigan for his Opening Statement statement. Thank you, chairman labrador. And i want to let my colleague from california know that i am a cosponsor of her legislation, with great pride. Members of the committee and to our distinguished witness, i too want to note the passing of juan osana who served as the director of the executive office of immigration review and who testified before this subcommittee in that capacity. Mr. Osana was a model Public Servant who devoted the last 17 years of his life to the department of justice. He was a consummate professional, known for his leadership and the ability to balance access to justice with court efficiency. Im sure hes deeply missed by the department and those that work with him there. Now, 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. The antiimmigrant ideology. Now, after all, since the early stage of his campaign, now President Trump has shown troubling disregard for that rule. Hes attacked the judiciary, issued an 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 the immigration review appears to have not escaped this broad erosion of rule of law principles based on the administrations policies that threaten judicial independence, due process and fundamental fairness within our Immigration Courts. First, media accounts report that the Trump Administration could impose numerical and timebased case quotas on Immigration Judges. All of us, regardless of party, support commonsense measures for reducing Immigration Court backlogs. But quotas are not the solution. Their implementation would force already overstressed judges to hurry through lengthy dockets regardless of the circumstances of individual cases. Hearings would become lightening fast, fundamentally unfair and devoid of due process. In short, 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 obtaining counsel essential to protecting his or her rights. Together with case quotas this will force many respondents, even young children, to face immigration and Custom Enforcement prosecutors without counsel, which all but ensures their unjust removal. Thirdly, the executive office for immigration review has moved to strip children in immigration proceedings of other vital protections. In a callus break with prior policy, the Agents Office of general counsel issued an opinion concluding that Immigration Judges may revoke minors, unaccompanied alien child status and associated legal safeguards. As with the first two measures, this will substantially increase removals of minors. The common denominators among these three measures are clear. Far less due process and fairness, far more deportations, which is anything but the rule of law. Instead, these policies undermine that rule in 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 administratives executive Office Immigration review policies concretely advance that agenda and how they serve to further his mass deportation plan. I thank acting director mchenry for his appearance before the commit