Transcripts For CSPAN3 Executive Office For Immigration Review Oversight Hearing 20171122

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 Security Deputy 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 committee and look forward to a substantive dialogue with him on these critical matters. I thank the chair and yield back any time that may be remaining. Thank you, mr. Conyers. Without objection, other members Opening Statements will be made a part of the record. We have a distinguished panel here today, a panel of one. And the witnesss written statements will be entered into the record in its entirety. I ask you summarize your testimony in five minutes or less. To help you stay within that time 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. When the light turns red it signals that your five minutes have expired. I will give you a little bit of leeway because youre the only witness, but dont go much beyond the five minutes. And before i introduce your witness, id like you to stand and be sworn in. Do you swear that the testimony youre about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Let the record reflect that the witness answered in the affirmative. Thank you, please be seated. Mr. Mchenry was appointed acting director of the executive office for immigration review on may 30th, 2017. Prior to his appointment he served in the office of the associate attorney general. He was previously an Administrative Law judge in the office of disability adjudication and review and the Social Security administration. Mr. Mchenry has also worked as an attorney for the u. S. Immigration and customs enforcement. Mr. Mchenry earned a bachelor of science from the Georgetown School of foreign service, a master of arts in Political Science from the Vanderbilt University graduate school, and a jurist doctor from the Vanderbilt University law school. I now recognize mr. Mchenry for his statement. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the department of justices executive office for immigration review, or as we affectionally call it eoir. This is my third stint and i have a deep respect for eoirs mission. I began my legal career as a judicial law clerk for Immigration Judges, and i returned to the agency several years later as an Administrative Law judge. I am honored to now serve as its acting director and to be able to appear before you to discuss some of the challenges and opportunities it currently faces. At eoir our primary mission is to adjudicate immigration practices. By fairly expeditiously and uniformly interpreting the Immigration Laws. We do that under delegated authority from the attorney general, by conducting Immigration Court hearings, administrative hearings, and appellate reviews. The last several years have raised significant challenges, as policy changes and daca Management Practices have contributed to pronounced immigration cases. The caseload has almost tripled since fy 2009 and doubled since 2012. Addressing this case load is a top priority for the agency, and we have formulated a multifront plan to achieve our goal of expeditiously reducing the number of pending cases while maintaining due process. Were actively implementing a number of initiatives towards that goal which im happy to talk about today. First, we are increasing our adjudicatory capacity by hiring more Immigration Judges. Weve hired 61 new judges since january 1st, and were in the process of filling up to 42 additional positions utilizing a new streamlined hiring process announced by the attorney general earlier this year. Second, we are maximizing our existing adjudicatory capacity by addressing docket inefficiencies and unused courtroom capacity. For example, earlier this year we issued guidance to assist Immigration Judges with fair and efficient docket Management Practices related to continuances. Weve also implemented a policy of no dark courtrooms by expanding our use of video teleconferencing and by rehiring retired Immigration Judges on a parttime basis to hear cases as needed when permanent Immigration Judges are unavailable. Third, we are transforming the Institutional Culture and improving infrastructure by focusing on reorienting the agency toward its core mission of adjudicating cases and by upgrading our infrastructure to switch from a paperbased to an electronicbased system. We are committed to piloting an Electronic Filing system in 2018. Fourth, were working with our partners, particularly at the department of Homeland Security to ensure that any sudden influx of new cases does not undermine our efforts. Fifth, we are reviewing all our internal policies to evaluate ways in which our own guidance may be utilized effectively. In the disposition of pending cases. All these initiatives are beginning to yield some signs of progress. For instance, in fy2017, our judges completed approximately 20,000 more cases than they did the prior fiscal year, and the most cases overall since fy2012. We know more challenges lie ahead of us. There are two other eoir programs i would like to mention for the subcommittee and are also integral to the overall success of the agency. First we have expanded our fraud and Abuse Prevention Program. And in june i issued an directive reminding all eoir employees of their duty to report fraud and abuse. Particularly in regard to applications for relief or protection of immigration proceedings. Eoir has no tolerance for misrepresentations of fraud in our system. Second, weve reevaluated our Strategic Planning division which has been under utilized in the last two years. None of our efforts can be successful without solid data analysis, and we are pleased to have a robust Analytics Division to aid us in our policy development and implementation. Mr. Chairman, representative lofgren, i am proud of eoir and its employees and proud to highlight progress made. However, we are also cognizant more work needs to be done. Nevertheless, we will continue to make significant strides in 2018 in reversing some of the negative trends of the past. Thank you again, and im pleased to answer any questions you have. Thank you, mr. Mchenry. We will now proceed on the fiveminute rule with questions. I will begin by recognizing myself for five minutes. Mr. Mchenry, how many Immigration Judges do you anticipate hiring and onboarding in the upcoming fiscal year . Its hard to say for the entire fiscal year. We have 19 currently in the pipeline, and were in the process of hiring up to 42 additional ones. So that would be a total of 61. Beyond that it would depend on factors such as availability retirements and things like that. But at least 61 by the spring of next year. What steps is eoir taking to convert to a process of efiling system . We have had several meetings with our office of information technology. And ive made it clear in no Uncertain Terms that efiling and electronic case system is an absolute priority for the agency. Weve begun piloting weve begun developing a process to pilot an Electronic Filing system next year. Its more than just an Electronic Filing system. Its an overall electronic Case Management system. Were in the process of developing the prototype for it now and soliciting additional feedback. I am confident well have some pilot of some type in Immigration Courts in 2018. Judge kellers memorandum of july 2017 provided the framework for continuances in Immigration Court. How is eoir able to enforce that memorandum and ensure Immigration Judges are not overtly ignoring it when ruling on continuances. The memorandum by its own terms, its an operating policies and procedures memorandum, doesnt direct a determination in specific cases. It does remind judges, however, of considerations they should keep in mind regarding docket infishgt si inefficiencies when entertaining spern requests. That memorandum was issued at the end of july, so weve just come upon a threemonth window when it came into effect. Were just now getting the data to analyze it. Once we review the data and see what it shows, then well take the steps if appropriate to go back. Do you have any preliminary findings from the data youve looked at so far . We had a couple initial findings, but there seemed to be some data quality issues and thats why were going back and double checking them. Okay. Much of todays hearing focuses on the backlog that stands at 630,000 pending cases. To what extent do you believe that the reallocation of resources and judges to socalled priority dockets of accompanied minors contributed to the backlog . I dont believe theres any question it contributed to the backlog in a significant way. A measurement of the precise magnitude is perhaps a little difficult to come by. But its clear, especially unaccompanied alien children cases, they typically take longer to resolve than other cases, other immigration cases for various reasons. So by putting them to the front of the line, you put cases that take longer to resolve first, and then you continue cases that otherwise might have been resolved in their place. So its had a significant impact, as i said, though so its almost the opposite of triage. That we actually put the ones that are take the longest in the beginning instead of taking care of the ones that we could handle right away. It was a system that was counter productive, i think, to its stated goal of trying to resolve the cases more quickly. Does eoir still prioritize these cases . We changed our priorities for the third time in three years in january of this year. That was before i became acting director, so i cant speak entirely to the process that drove that. Currently, our priorities regarding unaccompanied children are only those who are in the custody of the department of health and human services. Other unaccompanied alien children are no longer considered a priority. But i can say that within the agency, within eoir as a whole, myself, my Senior Management team, are reviewing our overall priorities in general and looking at whether that priorities memo is still the best statement of how we look at cases. As eoir is considering instituting certain performance metrics for Immigration Judges, including possible case completion goals, how would you expect such metrics to impact the current backlog . Well, eoir already operates under a number of performance metrics. Some of those are established by the immigration and nationality act. Some developed by the Government Development performance act. Those results have been positive so far. The goals that we do have. We would anticipate if we develop new goals and weve been recommended to do those by the gao, the office of the inspector general, by congress, we develop those new goals, we would expect the judges to be able to comply with those, as well. We fail our judges are professional enough that they can understand the importance of adjudicating cases while at the same time maintaining due process in each individual case. So according to track data, the average number of days that a case is pending before the Immigration Court is 691. It seems that it is meaningless for i. C. E. To apprehend individuals and place them into removal proceedings if they will then be in limbo for over two years before there is final disposition of their case. What is eoir doing to reduce this average number of days pending . I dont have it in terms of days. I have it in terms of month. The average pending nondetained case is approximately 21 months. But we are trying to reduce that, as i mentioned. Were looking at docketing efficiencies, looking at instituting specialized dockets to try to consolidate cases. Achieve efficiencies of scale. Were also committed to no more dark courtrooms. Whenever we have a judge who is absent, were going to have either by vtc or rehired retired immigration judge, be able to hear those cases in those absence. Together that should start bringing the average down. Thank you very much. I now recognize the gentle lady from california, ms. Lofgren. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Its good news were making progress on the electronic case filing system. So that would be i think theres unanimous support here for that success. I do have some concerns, however, about some of the other proposals. I wanted to raise an issue first about the what i understand is disbanding the Juvenile Court docket in new york city. Its my understanding that almost the highest amount of Pro Bono Service was provided to children in new york. And id like to ask unanimous consent, mr. Chairman, to enter into the record a letter from kids in need of defense, safe passage project, and the Legal Aid Society of new york and the door about the closure of this docket. Can you explain the decision in this case, or am i incorrect . My understanding is that occurred in january of this year. I was not at eoir at the time, so i cant speak to what was the driving force behind it. I do know, as i alluded to a moment ago, we issued a new priorities memo about this same time that limited the types of unaccompanied alien child cases that were considered priorities. So i assume that had something to do with it. But i cant speak to it directly. You know, in immigration removal proceedings, we all know that the government doesnt provide lawyers. And i think it was one Supreme Court decision that described Immigration Law as close to the complexity of tax law. I think they described it as bugs on the page. Thats problematic for an adult. But for a child, its very challenging. There are children, some as young as 3 or 4, representing themselves in Immigration Court. In 2016, assistant chief immigration judge jack will made the claim that he was able to teach 3 and 4yearolds to represent themselves in Immigration Court. Do you believe its possible for a 3 or 4yearold to represent themselves in Immigration Court . I cant speak for judge weil directly. I asked what you think. Our judges dont teach the law. Thats not their role. Their role is to adjudicate the case. I understand that. But do you think a 3 or 4yearold has the legal capacity to understand the consequences of their statements, the validity of immigration claims . As the parent of a 4yearold, i can say no. Thank you. I have 2yearold twin grandsons, so heading towards 4. Thinking about the need to get representation for these kids, i wont ask you to comment on my bill, but youre going to have continuances, because judges have an obligation to uphold due process and fairness. And im just wondering whether you might be willing to revisit the decision in new york and to take a look at how we could enhance representation of children, not only for fairness to them, but for efficiency in the system. I will look into that. I would like to talk also about the hiring issues. In your testimony you talk about streamlining the hiring process. And it reminded me of the concern that we had here in 2008, when the Bush Administration went on a hiring spree, and the department of justice found that Monica Goodling and others violated the federal law and committed misconduct when they considered political and ideological affiliations when selecting Immigration Judges, and the eoir hiring process was reformed to prevent that from ever happening again. Have you changed those standards that were implemented following that hiring scandal to expedite, or are they basically the same and youre moving through them quicker . The process is very similar. Its still conducted according to merit systems principles. The new process, however, has specific deadlines that each component has to meet. Thats one of the things that makes it faster and more streamlined. I would like to just close with this. We remember when John Ashcroft was attorney general, and streamlined measures at the board of immigration appeals, which resulted in the lack of opinions, which caused a flood of appeals to the court of appeals. And im concerned, and as a matter of fact the Immigration Judges have written to us indicating their concern that these metrics are going to result in the same kind of flood of appeals to the court of appeals, and that rather than making the process more efficient, a change, and this is a quote from their letter, will encourage individual and class action litigation, creating even more backlogs. We certainly do need to have efficiency in the system. But i am concerned, as are the judges, that having these metrics is going to backfire on us. And i would ask unanimous consent, mr. Chairman, to place in the record a letter from the a statement from the National Immigrant Justice Center letter from 13 immigration groups. And did you put the letter from the judges in the record already . Yes. Okay. Then i will not ask for that. Unanimous consent . Without objection. Thank you. I yield back. The chair now recognizes the chairman of the full committee for his statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I apologize for being late, but i do appreciate your holding this hearing on a very important subject. The executive office for immigration review is charged with the administration of the u. S. Immigration courts and the board of immigration appeals as a component of the department of justice, eoir has the task of adjudicating immigration cases and ultimately interpreting the Immigration Laws enacted by congress. I am pleased that today we can conduct our critical oversight role and hear more about the future of our Immigration Court system. Just as in any other court matter or appeal, the onus is on the trier of fact to ensure that the law is applied correctly and that justice ultimately prevails. Over the the past several years this committee has engaged in review both in an oversight capacity and in the form of legislative action of the Obama Administrations failed immigration policies. The politicization of the Immigration Courts and the clear bias by former individuals in Top Administration jobs have led to a degradation of the courts. The u. S. Immigration courts and to a lesser extent the bia are often thought of as a policy mechanism of whatever administration is in office. This was unfortunately illustrated by guidance aimed at ensuring that Immigration Judges are playing their role in carrying out the obama daca initiative. While politics certainly played a role, mismanagement of the agency and the apparent lack of any meaningful guidance on daca control has resulted in an explosion of pending cases, some with merits hearing dates more than five years from now. The allocation of resources to socalled priority dockets have left the typical nondetained alien without resolution but with almost certain ability to receive Work Authorization in the United States. Rampant continuances or postponements of both initial and merits hearings have further escalated this backlog which has reached epic proportions. As we know, the gao identified several sources for the backlog. I am eager to hear about eoir plans to hire additional Immigration Judges, to implement best Management Practices, and to potentially set some metrics for case completion. Make no mistake, Immigration Judges must be autonomous and without bias while hearing cases and rendering decisions. But they must also be mindful of all components of the administration of justice. Needless changes of venue or continuances made in bad faith for the purpose of delay are detrimental to our system and should not be tolerated. It may turn out that legislative action as the best recourse to ensure that no matter what administration is in charge and what their principles may be, eoir will have clear statutory parameters under which to function. I look forward to hearing from our witness on that issue. There is no question that Congress Must take action to reform many facets of Immigration Law in an attempt to ensure National Security and streamline the process. But those actions will mean little if eoir continues to prioritize the system. Resource allocation must be prioritized to ensure that detailed judges have full dockets and incoming judges have courtrooms waiting. Eoir plays a vital role within the u. S. Immigration system and the time has long past to make necessary reforms. Im encouraged by the steps taken in the past ten months to address some of the issues already raised and i look forward to hearing more about that. Mr. Mchenry, welcome, thank you for your work, and ill start with a question on the extent to which additional Immigration Judges in courts along the border accelerate removal proceedings, especially for those aliens referred following a positive credible fear determination. Whats your opinion on that . I havent seen a specific proposal. We would have to take into consideration a number of logistical factors, staffing, personnel, things like that. If the idea would be to send them to detention facilities, we would also have to coordinate that with the department of Homeland Security. So in the absence of a specific proposal, im not sure i can give a broad opinion. The gao had noted that a strategic workforce plan was needed at eoir in order to better anticipate workforce concerns, including the eventual replacement of Immigration Judges eligible for retirement. As 39 of judges are currently eligible for retirement, has a workforce plan been created and implemented at the agency . We completed the plan actually just before i became the acting director, and weve set up a Staffing Committee subsequently thats doing a top to bottom review of all positions within Immigration Courts. So that plan is in motion. As to the immigration judge retirements, thats been a common issue that weve heard in the past. The number of actual retirements averages fewer than ten per year over the past decade. So the number hasnt quite gotten to a critical point. Even if it were greater, we believe under the new streamlined hiring plan, were able to replace those judges within six months, that wouldnt have a Strong Negative effect as it has in the past. Thank you. Going back to my first question, what would you i think we all agree you need more judges. Do you agree with that . Yes. Okay. So how would you deploy those judges . We would look at a variety of factors. We would look at where the dockets are the most critical, have we have the largest dockets. We also have to be mindful of space, personnel, logistical issues, things like that. We maintain a running review of different locations around the country. We have cases broken down by zip code, by location. We have to consider all of those factors and making determinations as to where were going to deploy the next judges. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chair. And the chair will now recognize now as you and all of us are aware, President Trump has repeatedly promised to deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants. Youre aware of that, i presume. Ive heard that report. Youve heard it, yeah. This committee has marked up legislation that would unfortunately implement President Trumps vision for mass deportation. And these plans often involve expediting removal hearings, streamlining Immigration Court procedures and denying legal representation. Now, under your watch, do you believe the Immigration Court system will implement a mass deportation agenda . Our judges adjudicate immigration cases that are brought to us by the department of Homeland Security. So i would defer any questions about their Enforcement Actions to them. I cant speak for that agency. Our judges adjudicate the cases that are brought in front of them. They adjudicate them in a professional and dedicated manner based on the facts and the evidence before them. And they ensure that due process is met. Well, im not asking them. Im asking you. What you think about it. About im sorry. Well, the plans of the president are such that i want to know if you believe the Immigration Court system will implement a mass deportation agenda. I cant speak fully and im not entirely sure what mass deportation agenda means in this context. Deporting all 11 million undocumented immigrants. Our Immigration Judges arent involved in the actual deportation or removal of aliens. They make determinations as to whether an alien or someone is removable in the first instance and then they make a second determination whether that person is entitled to relief or protection from removal. Well, that gets us right back to where we began. Thats what they do, is determine removal. Its two steps youve mentioned. They do also determine relief and protection from removal as well. Yes. But im asking you about President Trumps promise or threat to deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants. And all i want to know is do you believe that the Immigration Court system might implement a mass deportation agenda. Again, its not the role of the Immigration Courts to implement any particular agenda. They adjudicate the cases brought to them by the department of Homeland Security and issue decisions either based on removability or based on protection or relief from removal. You dont think theyre influenced by President Trumps public position on this question . I have confidence that our judges apply the law in each case to the facts and evidence in that case and they make the best decisions based on the evidence before them. Well, do you believe that President Trumps promise or threat has any bearing or influence upon them at all . I cant speak to the mindset of all of our judges. As i said, i do have confidence that they carry out their duties to the best of their abilities, the best of their understanding of the law based on the facts and the evidence of each case that comes before them. Well, do you believe that the policies implemented by the executive office for immigration review may lead to mass deportation . Our policies are not outcome determinative and theyre not implemented with any specific outcome in a particular case in mind. Our policies are essentially outcome neutral. Were trying to resolve more cases. Were not trying to reach any particular outcome one way or the another. I know it, but they may be neutral, but the policies may lead to mass deportation anyway, or they could. Or you may think that they wouldnt. I mean, in other words, im not asking you how they operate. If there was implemented such a policy, would this lead to mass deportation . Im not sure i understand which policy in particular. The policies that i just mentioned. President trump has repeatedly promised to deport 11 million, all 11 million undocumented immigrants. I havent seen a specific proposal as to how that would impact eoir. I didnt say you did see it. The gentlemans time has expired. Consent for one additional minute. Without objection. But i think youve asked him the same question seven different ways and hes answered your question. Im not sure what else you want the gentleman to do. Could i get a minute . You can get an additional 30 seconds, yes. 30 seconds. Well, thank you very much. Its already two minutes over. Do you, mr. Mchenry, believe that the policies implemented by the executive office for immigration review will protect the Due Process Rights of immigrants . All the processes or all the policies that eoir has implemented, at least since ive been acting director, due process is certainly a significant consideration. Is it fair for me to assume that youve said yes . Yes. Okay. Last question. In recent executive office for immigration review announcements, the minimum qualifying experience required to apply has been changed from seven years of relevant legal experience to seven years of litigation in governmentinstituted proceedings. Can you think of any kinds of legal examples of any kinds of legal experiences that would qualify as litigation in governmentinstituted proceedings . With respect, congressman conyers, i believe thats a misreading of the advertisement that we sent out. The advertisement, actually i had occasion to look at this, because we got an inquiry to our Public Affairs office on that very point not too long ago. The advertisement actually says a full seven years of experience either in litigation or in administrative proceedings at the federal, state, or local level. It doesnt require and its not limited to proceedings that were just initiated by the government. Thats one example thats given in the advertisement but its not the only example. All right. The gentlemans time has expired. I thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I recognize mr. King, the gentleman from iowa. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Mchenry, thank you for your testimony. As im listening to the gentleman from michigan and his discussion about the alleged effort to round up and deport 11 million people, i still havent heard anyone advocate for that that seems to be for it. I make that point. But also im looking at the overruns here, ill call it, the 691 days the average wait for a resolution and 630,000 pending cases. And your intent to hire at least 61 new judges by spring. And im wondering what your opinion would be if we were able to, in short order, by spring, we wont get it done that soon, but build a 2,000mile wall, 30 feet high. And if we were able to do that successfully, what would that how would that impact your caseload over the longer term . Ultimately i cant answer that. I know. Its speculative and a bit of a hypothetical at this point. Moreover, dhs, the department of Homeland Security, would have primary responsibility for the wall and for border crossers. So a lot of it would depend on their actions. I would have to defer to them. But i dont think it takes the department of Homeland Security to answer the question, if we build an impermeable wall all the way down to hell and all the way up to heaven, what would happen to your caseload . Again, i cant speak to that. Sure, you can. Its a little too speculative for me to speak to. But if you had no one crossing the border, i guess i have to put this in some different terms. If no one crossed the border, all done, then what happens to your caseload . Well, the other excuse me. I want to rephrase that. If no one can cross the border, what happens to your caseload . There are other factors we have to consider. Some of our caseload is driven by interior cases, individuals come does it go up or does it go down . Again, i cant speak to it. Can you all right. How many judges does it take, then, to deplete this caseload down to a reasonable time . Weve run several estimations, and weve asked for additional judges. I think up to a total of 700 is where it really starts to turn around. Judges . Yes. Its not a surprise to me to hear a number like that, its actually not very often that we get someone that lays out a proposal to get there. And then how many judges does it take to maintain the current flow . Didnt hear what you said in is terms of the number. Im sorry. Ive forgotten. You said the number of is judges. I didnt hear what you said. Is we currently have authorization for 384. The next budget request brings it up to 449. The president has outlined a policy that would add 370, that gets to approximately 700. Thank you. If i could go back to where i was, would be the question was, if you get up to that number, thats the number you said it takes to deplete your caseload down to a reasonable turnover time. How many judges does it take to maintain it at the current level that cases are coming in the door . I dont know that i have the analytics of the data in front of me. Thats curious. How many judges dogs it take to get this under control and how many does it take to maintain it are two different questions that i would think you would answer before you answer the first question. Because were focused on reducing it and bringing it down to a manageable level, we havent studied sort of maintaining the status quo. That may be part of it. I see. When you are evaluating the applicants, i listened to the gentle lady from california talking about the monica goodland case, testifying before this committee in this room. I would ask the question, when you evaluate the applicants, do you examine their bios carefully . We look at their resumes. They typically have thats it . They typically have to submit a resume. If they dont put it on the resume, do you go beyond that . I think the last ad required a resume. I know in prior ads we required law school transcripts. Going back a few years weve also required letters of recommendations. Had an about professional affiliations or ngo affiliations . Those have never been required, to my knowledge. So you could have someone there whose job is to bring about an adjudication who had a long history of lulac or aclu or splc and you wouldnt know that . Our Immigration Judges represent a wide variety of careers. Weve run some numbers on that, the vast majority of them have worked for many different organizations, entities, and Government Agencies throughout their careers. And if i were to request that information in a more precise fashion, would you be able to deliver that . I think all of the biographies of most of them are online currently. Then just in my concluding question here, as the attorney advisers, can you tell me how they are chosen . Attorney advisers, those that might have been chosen to write a given opinion. Are you talking at the border of immigration appeals level or the Immigration Court level, or some other agency or some other component of eoir . Why dont you tell me both of them. Our judicial law clerks are typically hired through the honors program, every fall. Those go to the Immigration Courts. They typically serve for two years. And then go on to some other career. Okay. Thats how you choose. But how are the cases chosen . Is it a random Selection Process . How are they assigned . The cases at which level . At the board level. There are panels and teams that are assigned. I dont have the specific mechanics in front of me, though. But youre testifying its a random Selection Process . They do theyre required by regulation to have screening panels. So there are panels that look at the cases on the front end to determine if theyre subject to summary dismissal or Something Like that. Ill follow up with that in a written request. I thank you, mr. Mchenry, and i yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. The chair will now recognize mr. Cicilline. May i ask unanimous consent to put into the record a letter from the association of pro bono counsel . Without objection. The chair recognizes mr. Cicilline. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im sure, sir, you are aware that there is tremendous disparity in the asylum grant rates by our Immigration Judges. As recently as 2006, the Government Accountability Office Confirmed the disparity, noting that the grant rate in the new york Immigration Court was 52 . The grant rates in the omaha, atlanta, and bloomington, minnesota, courts were less than 5 . The gao additionally found this disparity persisted even holding constants in case and judge characteristics. These jurisdictions with grant rates have earned the name asylumfree zones. And include houston, dallas and charlotte and atlanta and las vegas. Asylum denial rate in atlanta is 98 , almost no one is granted asylum. I understand that you were a i. C. E. Trial attorney and some of your colleagues at doj and ths are also former i. C. E. Attorneys in atlanta. There have been reports that the goal of dhs is to replicate the atlanta model for the rest of the country with the goal of driving down asylum grant rates to minuscule percentages. Do you think that the atlanta courts with a 98 rate of asylum denial is the model that other Immigration Courts should be following and is there any discussion, overtly or implicitly, and suggesting that model be followed . Im not sure we have a model, a onesizefitsall for any of our Immigration Courts. Its not a onesizefitsall. My question is, is that model, that rate of denial, something you as the leader of the office are promoting or theres an active effort to use that as a standard . As i mentioned a moment ago, the policies we implement are not driven by particular outcomes. Theyre designed to be outcome neutral. Were not looking to make one court like any other court. In fact it would be inappropriate for us to start going into specific cases to tell judges which cases they should deny, which ones they should grant. I mean, you dont think that that rate of 98 denial that the atlanta courts follow ought to be a model followed by other Immigration Courts . As i indicated, we dont believe theres one standard model, whether its a court that grants a lot of cases or a court that denies a lot of cases. Were not our role is not to go in and pick and choose which cases should be granted or which ones should not. I recognize you dont pick and choose. I guess my question is, does it concern you, this is the second question, that that kind of disparity exists . Weve looked at this, because this concern has been raised before. But its difficult to compare sort of apples and oranges once you start looking at specific or individual cases. Cases that may look the same on the surface turn out not to be the same down below. Thank you very much. It is not so difficult to do, courts do this all the time. They do an analysis of sentencing, and they do an analysis of charging. They are able to control for the different jurisdictions and different judges. Theres lots of good ways to do that. So i would urge you to look at this disparity and pay close attention to it because i think it undermines confidence in the system. The second thing i want to discuss with you, and i apologize if someone mentioned this while i was out of the room, but this report that we have been hearing that the department of justice plans to use a numeric and time based completion quotas to evaluate the performance of Immigration Judges with the idea, i presume, that someone would either be rewarded or disciplined for failing to complete a certain number of cases in a particular period of time, i take it that you will publicly reject that idea, and that is not the plan to actually use the number of cases and the time it takes as a method of deciding whether or not a judge is doing his or her job. As i mentioned earlier, eoir already operates under a number of performance metrics. Some of them are set by the immigration nationality act. Others weve developed do any of those metrics involve the number of cases you complete and how long it takes you to complete them . Yes. The immigration nationality act, section 235, requires federal peer reviews to be conducted within seven days. Theres also a time limit for asylum applications in section 208. Other than requirements by statute of meeting a certain deadline, are there other evaluations of Immigration Court judges that relate to how quickly or how many cases they resolve . Weve developed standards under the government performance and results act that also looks at similar measures. And in fact, for detain cases similar to what . What do you mean, similar measures . In terms of completing cases, moving cases more efficiently, that sort of thing. Are you telling me, sir, that you currently evaluate in part the performance of Immigration Judges based on the number of cases and the period of time it takes them to resolve those cases . Its not part of the individual judges performance work plan currently. But it is numbers that we do track, because we keep that data to make the process better. You intend to make it part of the Performance Plan of individual judges . Thats something i cant get into. That still requires some additional discussions with the unions. Its not appropriate its something youre pursuing . Its something were looking at in consultation with the unions. Mr. Chairman, i would ask an indulgence for one moment. The National Association of Immigration Judges explains this sort of effort would be, and i quote, a huge, huge, huge encroachment on judicial independence. Its trying to turn Immigration Judges into Assembly Line workers. I would ask, again, that you reject publicly the idea that you would use simply the numbers of cases or the amount of time it takes to complete immigration work as a measure of the quality of a judges work. I think it turns our judicial system in proceedings such as this on their head. With that i yield back. Thank you. Just a followup question, mr. Mchenry. There is a split in the circuit, right, as to asylum law and all these different areas. So wouldnt that yield different results in different areas . Well, there are a number of reasons for the discrepancy and the rates. Not only are there differences in circuits, but many asylum applications are denied for reasons that are unrelated to the merits. An individual may be denied asylum but granted withholding of removal or some other form because they didnt file for asylum on time or because theres some criminal ground. There are a number of explanations for the disparities. It becomes difficult to sort of get down to that level of granularity without essentially redeciding each case. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from arizona. Thanks, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Mchenry, for being here. The Trump Administration is considering expedited removal procedures to increase those who could be removed from the United States without first appearing before an immigration judge. In the past this group has included illegal aliens caused within 100 miles of the border and within two weeks of entry. Reports say that could be expanded nationwide and to aliens who cannot prove they have been in the United States for at least two years. Do you think such a policy would be beneficial in limiting the number of new cases that come before a court . Expedited removal is a policy thats undertaken by the department of Homeland Security. I would have to defer to them on any questions about it. You cant make any assessment on whether that might decrease because the number of people that would be in that pool, that would normally come before a court, you dont know you cant assess whether that would actually decrease it would be speculative for me to say, because there are a number of exceptions to expedited removal that are already enshrined in the statute. We would have to take account of those before giving an impact on our caseload. You said in your Opening Statement, im going to give a rough quote because i was trying to get it while you were saying it, that you were concerned that the new influx doesnt overwhelm our capabilities. I wondered what you meant by that and if you would expand on that, please. I dont want to speak for the department of Homeland Security. But my understanding is they have their own adjudicatory backlog concerns. So we have to make sure that we dont get swamped by any sudden influx of new cases that they bring to us. Okay. And you talked about fraud in your Opening Statement and in your summary or excuse me, in your document that you provided to us. Please tell me more about fraud and more specifically how you are dealing with fraud. And with the amount of backlog that you have, i am interested in the number of fraud complaints being below it looks like its below 200. Explain to me what that how that impinges on the backlog. The fraud and Abuse Prevention Program was set up in the mid2000s. Weve sort of tried to revitalize it in the past few months. The number of referrals coming in from the field has gone up i think over 100 . I also issued a memo earlier this year to remind all the employees, all of our employees including Immigration Judges, that they do have a duty and a responsibility to report fraud, misrepresentations, where they see them. So we are starting to see an increase. Some of those are still in investigation, so i cant really speak to them directly. It looks like were trying to ensure our employees are focused on that. In terms of the backlog, obviously any misrepresentations undermine the integrity of the system. They cause cases to have to be delayed to investigate allegations, things like that. The more that we can root out fraud, the more efficient our system is going to be. And i get the impression that youre not satisfied with a very basically a fraction of a point of fraud detection and apprehension . I wouldnt say that we have a specific target in mind. But we do know anecdotally there are a number of instances that are out there, a number of instances have been reported over the past few years. We are marshaling our efforts to make sure we can root it out as much as possible in our proceedings. After an order of removal has been issued, whats the process for removal . I would defer that to the department of Homeland Security, theyre responsible for actually executing the order of removal. So you would not know how many individuals are currently present in the u. S. With a final order of removal . I would not. Okay. What penalty occurs for those who commit fraud in the system . It would depend on the nature of the fraud. I mean, it could be anything from a criminal penalty to a sanction, to the denial of an application, to a permanent ineligibility for most benefits. In the criminal in the field of criminal law, everybody has a certain period of time before their case has to actually be adjudicated and completed. So for instance, if youre in custody, maybe 90 days. If youve been in custody, but youve been released, its 120. If youve never been in custody, maybe 150 days, depending on the state and the rules that govern. Whats the rule for immigration cases . Do you have any deadline before somebody has to make an appearance and actually adjudicate the case . For a typical removal case, theres nothing like the speedy trial act or Something Like that. Thanks, mr. Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes ms. Jackson lee from texas for five minutes. Let me thank the witness and thank the chairman and the ranking member. This is an important hearing. But i think, as some of my colleagues know, periodically ive taken just a moment and i guess it will be just a brief moment, to reassert, even as we discuss these vital issues, that in light of the indictments on monday, october 30th, were not really focusing on the institutions that are important to stabilizing our government. So i hope that i will place on the record a concern that many of us have that we have not begun to look at the questions of obstruction of justice, collusion in the 2016 election with russia, and frankly, the beginning of the mueller special counsel work is not ending, but it is beginning. And to ensure that we discuss any prohibition or any stopping of the administration attempting to fire director mueller. So i wanted to place that on the record, even as we question the witness, and mr. Mchenry, thank you so very much for your presence here today. I introduced legislation dealing with the need for Immigration Judges, and continue to introduce it. At that time i asked for 75 new judges. Did i hear you correctly that you are seeking to or i think theyre not Immigration Judges, youre looking to do sort of attorney advisers for 61, what was the 61 number you were trying to do . We have 19 Immigration Judges currently in the hiring pipeline. And weve had three advertisements since july for up to 42 additional positions. And were in the process of also filling. We expect or anticipate getting 61 additional Immigration Judges on board by the spring of next year. So we are speaking of judges . Yes. Permanent Immigration Judges. Yes. And so my number, 75, was not unrealistic. I would encourage you to raise that number and the administration to raise that number. Now, we have a different perspective on how what we perceive this court to do. Do you seek judges who adhere to due process and the recognition that immigrants have a right to present their case fully . We expect all judges that we hire, after we train them, that they will respect the Due Process Rights and apply the law as they see fit to the case and facts before them. We advertise and we hire from a wide range or wide variety of backgrounds when we select Immigration Judges. You were asked by a colleague of mine whether or not you distinguish or you weed out individuals who may have differing legal backgrounds, whether they were on the defense side of the immigrant bar, whether they were individuals from the aclu or various other advocacy groups. Do you do that, do you weed them out . No, maam, we do not. All of our hiring is conducted according to merit systems principles. We dont require information regarding any organizations or anything like that that individuals belong to. We evaluate them based on resume, interviews, writing samples, things like that. Mr. Mchenry, this is not a personal offense. Can i take you at your word . Because obviously we come from different sides of the aisle, and may have a different perspective. But i think your answer is more than a credible answer. I know that youre a member of the bar. So am i. Not the drinking bar. I would hope that you would really be saying to me what is fact and truth and how you will implement that process. Is that am i to understand that . Again is that your accurate and true representation of what occurs and will occur . All of our hiring is conducted according to merit systems principles. We dont consider things like race, religion, political opinion, things like that. And therefore you do not attempt to exclude because of race, religion, or other aspects . No. We dont screen out any particular candidates one way or the other. Let me raise this question with you if i might. I want to read the story. I know we went down this line of questioning before, but i think this is important. The former majority leader, senator reed, often talked about an experience that he had in Immigration Court. Some of us had this experience where we saw the unaccompanied children. I was actually at the border with my colleague and we saw children who were fleeing persecution. But in this instance the child was five years old clutching a doll as she appeared before the judge. She was barely tall enough to see over the microphone. The judge asked her a series of questions to which she had no response. Finally after several nonresponses the judge asked her the name of the doll. She responded baby, baby doll. That concluded the hearing. So do you think in the hiring of judges that that would be an effective way to run a courtroom of the judges that you might be hiring . I cant speak to that specific example. Im not familiar with that case or that incident. But i do know that our judges, once they are hired, they undergo a rigorous training on different kinds of cases, including juveniles. Thats a five yearold. Do you believe that in that instance, putting aside the very fine way in which youre going to be hiring judges, if you were in the back of the room, would that be an appropriate way we havent call the judges name. The point is, would that be an appropriate way for a 5yearold to be handled in a proceeding . As i said, i cant comment on the specifics of that because i dont know the context or the background or any other factors. As i said, i do know our judges are trained to handle these types of cases. But common sense would say if you just not on the facts, then thats an answer that we as lawyers give. Common sense, if you just were in the back of the room and that was the end of the case, will you argue that that child needed at least representation or better understanding of what was going on . Well, the issue of children representations in litigation, so i cant comment on that specifically. As i said in that particular case im not familiar enough with the example. I would need to know more about the context and the facts. One more point on that. Would you think that this approach that may be being proposed by the administration of quoters meaning that judges have a cycle and they have to meet certain number of processes cases, would that be effective if the child was in the courtroom . Im not sure i know the question. If a judge has to run through his or her cases and a child happens to come before it as a petitioner in the courtroom unrepresented, so or represented, is that quoter still going where you have to run through these cases or allow a child to understand what was happening in the courtroom . It takes a little bit more time, doesnt it . Under this quota system, is the judge going to be allowed to take the time necessary to give a fair hearing to an immigrants or defense or petitioners position . I have confidence that our judges can efficiently and effectively move cases and dispose of those cases while maintaining due process in individual cases, yes. The gentleman ladys time expired. Thats a commitment youre making based on your testimony . I believe our judges are professional enough to be able to expeditiously adjudicate cases in conjunction with the mission of eoir while maintaining due process. We will be watching. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, may i have unanimous consent to enter into the record two documents that, one, donald trump promises Deportation Force to remove 11 million people, and the second, President Trumps immigration policy to prioritizing almost all undocumented immigrants for deportation . Without objection. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, i want to put a question on the record for answer in writing, please. Without objection. The question is, and ill just its just very brief. The media is reporting that the department of justice, and i use this previously, but this is the specific question. The department of justice plans to use numeric and time based pace completion quotas. So id like our director to answer the question whether that is accurate and whether that will mean that judges will be dismissed or disciplined because they take extra time to hear the cases of those who need extra time, whether its a child, whether its an elderly, whether its a disabled or any kind of petitioner before the court. Id like to know how that matches with your recommendation not your recommendation, but your agencys work juxtaposed with the department. You can answer that in writing at a later time. The gentle lady yields back. I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Mchenry, theres been some discussion back and forth about the handling of minor case, juvenile cases. There is in fact a set of rules and procedures that would apply to those types of cases, correct . Depending on the exact facts of the particular case, theres both law and regulations that would govern it. We also have an operating policy and procedures memorandum that details, gives Additional Guidance to the judges on how to handle juvenile cases. Thank you. As a result of the fraud and Abuse Prevention Program that youre discussed today, do you anticipate with regard to asylum cases that well see a further decline in asylum grant rates as a result of these efforts . Again, i cant speculate because each asylum case is determined based on the evidence and the facts before it. I cant speculate to what the future rates will hold. There was a recent report issued by the Government Accountability office that founded eoir failed on numerous procedures to prevent asylum fraud in the adjudication process. They recommended regular fraud risk assessments across the asylum claims in the courts. You may have referenced this already this morning, but many of us had to come in and out. Have you consulted the gaos specific recommendations they issued in that report . I have. My understanding is my general counsels office, theyve completed one of the first risk assessments and were still reviewing the results of that. So none of thats been implemented . Its my understanding its been conducted at least the initial one but were still reviewing the results of what came back. Could you get to us later a quick summary of what you find with that. Im sure a lot of us would be interested in it. Personally, you were a former judge. Do you agree that judges face greater difficulties in assessing an individuals statements being true or not when theyre not recorded electronically . Wouldnt that be a benefit to have electronically recorded statements . Speaking as a judge, every judge i know wants as much evidence as they can possibly get. It is easier to determine, is it not, whether someplace is being consistent if you have a electronic recording of what theyve said prior . I think thats typically correct, yes. And youve testified earlier those efforts are under way . That youre i think the word you said ramping up or someone said ramping up the technology and what youre able to do in these proceedings . In terms of our Electronic Filing and our electronic case adjudication, yes. Does that also extend to the recording of statements . Is that something youre working on . Thats something dhs would handle. We record our hearings, but individual statements or anything that occurs outside of the hearing id have to defer to dhs for that. Okay. Well, theres no further questions, then we want to thank you for attending today. This concludes the hearing. Without objection all members have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness or additional materials for the record. With nothing further, the hearing is adjourned. Thank you. Has got to be the party that builds the new system. Weve got to be the party that builds a new system. That, just a short portion of our road to the white house 2020 coverage. You can watch the entire event at 8 eastern tonight on cspan. Thanksgiving day on cspan. At 11 30 a. M. The Liberty Medal ceremony honoring senator john mccain. At 1 00 p. M. , former secretary of state john kerry receiving a Lifetime Achievement award. At 2 45 p. M. David brooks and historian ron white discuss character and the presidency. 2 30 on the former heavyweight champion of the world muhammad ali. At 4 50 Erick Erickson on his book before you wake. On cspan 3 at 9 50 eastern on the presidency, the life and times of teddy roosevelt. At 11 00 a. M. , native americans and trade in 19th century california. Then at 2 55 a look at the first Motion Picture units world war ii films. Thanksgiving day on the cspan networks. The Milken Institute held its future of Health Summit recently. Youll hear from the president of the world bank. This is about an hour, 15 minutes. [ applause ]. Ill sit on the right side. To bring by partisan ship together a bit. So i think most of you know over the 20 plus years we have been putting on these events, we try to get you to know the other people at your table