The adage “the attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client” is commonly associated with criminal defense trials, but it can surely extend to the gridlocked immigration court system of the United States.
During the initial hearings of immigration court cases, judges will inform the respondents, who are often treated like criminal defendants, that they have the right to legal representation at their expense. This means the federal government won’t pay for the legal representation of respondents. Having the right to an attorney isn’t the same as being required to have one. While foreign respondents can legally speak for themselves and raise assertive defenses to avoid deportation and removal, their chances of prevailing are limited in the immigration court system.
Understanding the U.S. Immigration Court System
Like all federal courts, the immigration court system falls under the purview of the U.S. Department of Justice, specifically under the management of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). According to reviews by legal scholars at Syracuse University, the system is served by 731 federal judges, of which 49 operate as supervisory magistrates. In late 2024, the massive backlog of immigration court cases surpassed the 3.4 million mark.
When the EOIR was implemented in the early 1980s, most cases reviewed by immigration judges involved deportation and removal notices. A few cases were related to complex adjustment of status disputes, and a few others involved asylum requests. These days, more than 1.5 million active immigration cases are processed to determine whether applicants meet the legal requirements for asylum. Syracuse University researchers estimate 165,000 new cases are filed each month, and the court’s best-performing months are when 150,000 cases are closed.
The Risks of Self-Representation in Immigration Court
With such massive backlogs, it’s not surprising to learn rubber-stamping practices have been adopted by immigration judges. This is the main reason respondents shouldn’t venture into self-representation. The system is generally adversarial, and the attorneys representing the government as the plaintiff are from the legal departments of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We’re talking about lawyers trained in the 13 chapters of the Immigration Court Practice Manual and its memoranda. They’re skilled in advancing cases and persuading judges to streamline the proceedings.
The rubber-stamping in favor of the plaintiff and to the detriment of respondents often responds to the political climate. During the first administration of President Donald Trump, thousands of cases were fast-tracked into removal orders. This was certainly the case in areas near the Southern California border, which makes it critical for migrants to be represented by attorneys who provide immigration services in San Diego, CA. This trend upheld the anti-immigrant policies he espoused during his election campaign.
It’s too easy for DHS to act as overzealous prosecutors when handling immigration cases. They can lean on case law, immigration rules, and the unique procedural guidelines promulgated by the EOIR. They can smell blood in the water when respondents choose to represent themselves, and they’ll push to close cases with rubber-stamp dispositions. If they believe detention will help them win the cases, they’ll argue by filing motions and requesting hearings. For all these reasons, self-representation cannot be recommended for immigration court cases.
If you have questions about immigration services and how they may affect you and your family, contact trustworthy San Diego immigration lawyers. The attorneys at KS Visa Law have extensive experience with every facet of immigration law, and they’re the attorneys to call on when you need the most up-to-date information about immigration regulations and how to navigate the immigration court system. Call KS Visa Law today to schedule an appointment.
