Immigration Judge may be precluded from considering any evidence from a bond the Immigration Judge (such as information from the deportation hearing) or. EOIR Posts Immigration Judge Benchbook Online DOJ press release announcing that EOIR posted the “Immigration Judge Benchbook”. The IMMIGRATION JUDGE BENCHBOOK, including all files and hyperlinks therein contained, is a tool for immigration judges. It shares useful.

Author: Tocage Nahn
Country: Bahamas
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Education
Published (Last): 23 December 2007
Pages: 246
PDF File Size: 14.86 Mb
ePub File Size: 17.23 Mb
ISBN: 553-7-86803-984-9
Downloads: 26134
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Vuzil

Research and commentary on state efforts to restrict the movement of people across borders, and on the alternatives.

Farshy believed he stood no chance with Cassidy, who, Farshy says, consistently ruled against his clients and repeatedly mispronounced his name as “Farsy. On April 15, Cassidy called Farshy’s office to talk about the case. After leaving a message on Farshy’s answering machine, Cassidy, evidently believing he had hung up, resumed a conversation with government attorney Grace Sease, who was in the judge’s office.

Immigration Court Access to Judge Benchbook – Pappas Immigration Law

Farshy’s machine recorded what was said. Sease, who is now an immigration judge in Pennsylvania, laughed. To Farshy, the conversation was irrefutable evidence that Cassidy not only had engaged in ex parte communication — talking with the government attorney without Farshy present — but had pre-judged the case before it was even heard.

The next day, Farshy submitted a transcript of the recorded bennchbook as further evidence that Cassidy should recuse himself. After reviewing the transcript, Cassidy agreed to recuse himself, according to a complaint that Farshy filed with Cassidy’s bosses. But then, moments later, Cassidy reversed himself and announced he would remain as judge. He eventually denied the asylum request.

9PKZ-M9WW: Immigration Judge Benchbook

In his complaint, he wrote that “all of the And so, because what really mattered to the board was Cassidy’s final decision, not the way in which he made it, the board deemed his jidge “harmless. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Nudge, in response to Farshy’s complaint, acknowledged that Cassidy had made brief ex parte comments about Farshy’s client’s case. Nevertheless, Cassidy’s conduct “did not constitute professional misconduct or poor judgment. Mark is a U.

Mark does not speak a word of Spanish. There are four actions Cassidy has undertaken that go far beyond a moment’s poor judgment and that I believe disqualify him holding the title of immigration judge. I have left messages with various staff at the Atlanta Immigration Court requesting an interview with Cassidy and he has not replied, although he has been talking about details of Mark’s case with attorneys who do not represent Mark in an effort to gain their sympathy.

I believe Cassidy is not talking to me because he knows I cannot be manipulated by benchbookk, and not because he is averse to speaking about his hearings to third parties. A nationally prominent immigration attorney who deals with Cassidy regularly, and was attempting to excuse Cassidy’s actions, sent the following message to a listserve of other immigration attorneys: I have talked to Cassidy about this case The I, is immigratioh up and says that he and his parents are all born in Mexico, notes he claims to be bipolar, and then notes that he says he was born in South Carolina [sic–Mark was born in North Carolina].

The DARs are supposed to be inclusive of the entire hearing unless otherwise indicated. According to the Immigration Court Practice Manual: The entire hearing is recorded except for those occasions when the Immigration Judge authorizes an off-the-record discussion. On those occasions, the results of the off- the-record discussion are summarized by the Immigration Judge on the record. The Immigration Judge asks the parties if the summary is true and complete, and the parties are given the opportunity to add to or amend the summary, as appropriate.


Parties should request such a summary from the Immigration Judge, if the Immigration Judge does not offer one. This is damning for Cassidy for two reasons. These include a series of questions that immigratuon judge supposed to ask the respondent about his parents, his place of birth, age, and an instruction that those who may be U. Crucially, the judge is instructed to affirmatively explore possible defenses against deportation with pro se respondents: Cassidy’s own statements to his colleagues suggests that the DAR should have included an extensive exchange between Cassidy and Mark regarding Mark’s U.

I’m also not sure how anyone would find a statement that a respondent claims to be bipolar is grounds for supporting a deportation order, and immigratiob ordering a psychiatric evaluation and further inquiry into Mark’s mental competence regarding his other statements.

In addition, the DAR reveals several other inconsistencies between how Cassidy ran the Master Calendar hearing on December 9, i,migration how judges who follow the rules imnigration their hearings.

These range from him not naming the translator to improperly turning on and off the recording device without summarizing the events “off the record” to reading instructions to the respondents in a voice that is too fast to be properly understood in English, and without allowing time for the translator immigratioj translate.

You can go through the Master Calendar immigration judge benchbook checklist immigratioh compare that with the DAR and most of immiyration supposed to be there is missing, including the individual interviews with the respondents. It is not a complete record and its omissions are not properly benchboook. This is evident from the DAR itself. There is at least one point at which it quite obviously goes off and on and picks up in an entirely new sentence with no note made of the stoppage.

Moreover, at 15 minutes for 30 respondents, it is far too short to be a jude record. According to a court watcher who has attended Cassidy’s court, benchbolk is par for the course: I know Judge Sease says, ‘This is off the record,’ and then turns it back it immigratkon.

Another court watcher told me that Cassidy will say something is off the record but only when he physically leaves the room during a conference between an attorney who is in the courtroom in Atlanta and the client at the Stewart Detention Center. This court watcher did not recall other occasions in which the judge said events were on and off the record. A hearing for 30 people is going to take much longer than 15 minutes. Either the DAR judg was sent to Mark’s attorney, Neil Rambana, was not the entire DAR, or, Cassidy only recorded the formal portions at the hearing’s beginning roll call and the final formal orders at the end.

Both possibilities call into question Cassidy’s account of the events that day. The manner in which Cassidy made these statements to his superiors is something I still am not at liberty to reveal, but that will change shortly; at that point I look forward to posting on the evil of banality.

According to Mark, he told Cassidy he was a U. Mark said that after their names were read, Cassidy interviewed each of the respondents. I asked him how long the exchanges took and he said it depended on whether the respondent was challenging the deportation. Mark said, “One guy was detained for a very long time. I heard his lawyer. She was finding out how long he was detained and Cassidy said, ‘Send me whatever you have. They had too many American documents that he was a U. He also told me about another U.


He spoke a lot of English. I was born and raised here, but you can deport me if you like. However, as he was listening to people talk and the hearing progressed, Mark changed his mind and told a guard he had something else to say, “I need to speak to the judge.

I asked for more details on how the guard did this and Mark said there was a “very low door” and that “the guard had to go up to the judge on the TV, and he said I had another comment to make. Mark said that Cassidy told him he had to “go by the statement of a sworn ICE agent. Mark had never been in an immigration court before the day he met Cassidy and would be incapable of inventing the detailed narrative he gave me; also, as opposed to Cassidy, Mark has no incentive to lie since ICE had noted Mark’s claims to U.

Finally, Mark filed written grievances on ICE forms against Cassidy at the time of the deportation order and in the subsequent days before he was sent to Mexico, because Cassidy never sent Mark the paperwork he promised he would. These grievances should be at the Stewart Detention Center and hopefully Mark and his attorneys will obtain them and this will further substantiate his narrative. Hopefully by the time that is resolved Cassidy will be profusely apologizing to Mark and the immigration law community in Atlanta.

EOIR Counsel for Legislative and Public Affairs Fatimah Mateen told me Monday that “someone” whose name she could not recall decided EOIR could not comment on Lyttle’s case and that she would consult her notes in order to tell me who this was; she never did tell me this, but I learned today that “someone” was in fact Mateen herself.

EOIR’s Mateen’s obfuscation on this and other matters is a funny echo chamber of Cassidy’s own efforts to avoid transparency, accountability, and to shift responsibility elsewhere. One needs to have no information whatsoever about Mark to be instructed on whether the EOIR believes that Cassidy recorded the hearing properly, was being disciplined for deporting a U.

Please see comment submitted by reader on previous misconduct by Cassidy. Posted by jacqueline stevens at Newer Post Older Post Home. Subscribe in a reader. Subscribe via email Subscribe to States without Nations by Email.

I teach political theory and write about law-breaking by ICE and the immigration courts for The Nation magazine. My book States without Nations: Citizenship for Mortals was published by Columbia University Press in It explores alternatives to our current laws that base citizenship on parochial, unjust ideas about birth, and shows how these laws are connected to other archaic practices inconsistent with liberalism, including inheritance and marriage.

My first book was Reproducing the State Princeton, For contact and other information, please go to jacquelinestevens. View my complete profile. Bill to provide comprehensive immigration reform and with other purposes Loading Citizen Obtains His “Alien” File: Judge Who Deports U.

Citizen Has Heavy Finger on