Although it does not provide as far-reaching an overhaul of the immigration courts as many would like, the bill does contain some important provisions specific to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the adjudicatory body that reviews thousands of decisions by the nation’s immigration courts each year. Over the past fifteen years, the BIA has adopted various “streamlining” measures, including the elimination of 3-judge panels in a large number of cases and the issuance of summary opinions that provide little or no analysis (including the notorious “affirmance without opinion” or “AWO.”). As a result, the quality of the decisions, as well as the integrity of the system, has suffered tremendously.
In an effort to enhance the level of review at the BIA, the bill provides that a noncitizen may appeal an adverse immigration judge decision to a 3-judge panel of the BIA. In addition, the bill directs the BIA to issue opinions that address “all dispositive arguments” including any arguments raised by the losing party — in many cases, an unrepresented noncitizen — related to errors of law, fact or discretion. Some legislators, however, would strike these improvements from the bill. An amendment to the bill proposed by Senator Grassley (R-IA), for example, would eliminate the new provision on 3-judge panel review.
Is 3-judge panel review essential? Will the bill’s opinion requirement (i.e., addressing dispositive arguments) help ensure meaningful administrative review? What more should be done with respect to the BIA?
