Immigration judges lack apt backgrounds
morr...@mailinator.com
Immigration judges lack apt backgrounds
A growing number of the jurists have little or no experience in that
area of law. Some have strong Republican resumes.
By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer
May 26, 2007
WASHINGTON - Over the last two years, U.S. Atty. Gen. Alberto R.
Gonzales has appointed more than two dozen individuals as federal
immigration judges.
The new jurists include a former treasurer of the Louisiana Republican
Party, who was a legal advisor to the Bush Florida recount team after
the 2000 presidential election. There is also a former GOP
congressional aide who had tracked voter fraud issues for the Justice
Department, and a Texan appointed by then-Gov. George W. Bush to a
seat on the state library commission.
One thing missing on many of their resumes: a background in
immigration law.
These lawyers are among a growing number of the nation's more than 200
immigration judges who have little or no experience in the law they
were appointed to enforce.
The admission by former Justice Department official Monica M. Goodling
this week that federal immigration judges were screened for their
political credentials and loyalty to the Republican Party in possible
violation of civil service laws is drawing new attention to the
usually low-profile immigration bench.
The selection process that Goodling described also appeared at odds
with Gonzales' own stated efforts to reform the trouble-plagued
immigration-law system by bringing in experts and establishing tougher
performance standards for judges.
Goodling testified that as a senior counsel to Gonzales in 2005 and
2006, she considered factors such as party affiliation and political
donations when screening immigration judge applicants.
She said she did not remember in how many cases she applied such a
test.
Of the 226 immigration judges around the country, 75 have been
appointed during the Bush administration - 26 of them during Gonzales'
tenure. The judges handled more than 300,000 cases last year,
including deportation and asylum proceedings.
Immigration lawyers and judges said Goodling's revelation explained
what they perceived as a growing politicization of the immigration
bench in recent years.
"In the last few years, we have seen the appointment of a good number
of immigration judges with no background whatsoever in immigration ...
which really makes you wonder how it is they are being appointed to
those positions," said Crystal Williams, deputy director of programs
at the American Immigration Lawyers Assn. in Washington.
In light of Goodling's testimony, Williams said, "I think we might
have an answer."
Gonzales' appointment last year of an immigration judge in Arizona,
Bruce A. Taylor, was one that turned heads. Taylor is considered an
expert - not in immigration law but in prosecuting adult-obscenity
cases. Such cases are important to social conservatives, who form an
important base of support for the Republican Party.
His former colleagues adamantly defend the selection.
"He is far more qualified than most attorneys appointed to the federal
bench. He is certainly capable of mastering immigration law," said
Patrick Trueman, a former Justice Department obscenity prosecutor.
"Federal judges handle a wide variety of issues they did not handle in
their law practice. What is important is good legal judgment and
experience."
The Justice Department defended the new judges as well.
"The department values temperament, analytical ability and relevant
experience in the selection of immigration judges, and believes that
outstanding immigration judges can come from diverse legal
backgrounds," spokeswoman Cynthia Magnuson said Friday. "The
department considers all applicants based on the totality of their
professional records and backgrounds. Immigration judges appointed
during this administration were well-qualified for their current
positions."
The hiring and firing of immigration judges are covered by federal
civil service laws, which prohibit discrimination based on political
association.
The Justice Department has launched a widening internal review to see
whether laws were broken in the hiring of the immigration judges as
well as career prosecutors.
Goodling testified that she was told by another Justice official that
because the judges are appointed by the attorney general, she could
include political factors. Responding to her testimony, a Justice
Department spokesman said Thursday that the department had never taken
that view.
Considering political affiliation in filling civil service positions
is a violation of the Hatch Act, which is designed to keep party
politics separate from the day-to-day operations of the federal
government. Such a violation could result in the firing of any
employees involved in the illegal screening, and could trigger
discrimination litigation by applicants who were declined positions.
Some lawmakers think standards for evaluating candidates have become
too lax. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has proposed requiring that
prospective immigration judges have at least five years of experience
in immigration law before being considered for the bench.
Gonzales last year chastised immigration judges for "intemperate or
even abusive" conduct toward people seeking asylum in the United
States.
As part of a comprehensive review of U.S. immigration courts, he is
ordering that judges be tested about their knowledge of the law and
undergo periodic performance reviews.
Some immigration judges said the recent hiring of politically
connected judges undermined his goal of improving the quality of the
bench and its decision making.
"The irony of it is ... he has put a larger number of people with no
immigration backgrounds in as judges who would not be subject to the
new requirements," said Denise Slavin, an immigration judge in Miami
since 1995 and president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges.
"This highlights the concern we have about the public perception of
judicial independence and integrity in the immigration courts' system."