IJ Guidance on Waiving Respondent's Presence During an Oral Decision
| Tracking # |
2019-34516, A-2020-00604 2019-34516 |
| Submitted | May 25, 2019 |
MuckRock users can file, duplicate, track, and share public records requests like this one. Learn more.
Communications
From: Matthew Hoppock
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, I hereby request the following records:
1. The e-mail messages and Skype instant messages to or from any ACIJ between the dates of April 1, 2019 and the date this request is processed regarding whether an IJ is permitted to waive an immigrant's presence during an oral decision. In practice, some IJs have been conducting trials and then giving an "oral decision" but have been dismissing the respondent (permitting them to leave) before rendering the oral decision. It is our understanding guidance may have been issued sometime int he last month or so instructing Immigration Judges to stop doing that. We are requesting the e-mail messages and Skype instant messages to help determine what this new policy is and how it applies.
Acceptable keywords may include:
the phrase "oral decision"
along with any of the following:
"waive respondent's presence"
"waived respondent's presence"
"waive the respondent's presence"
"waived the respondent's presence"
"waive respondents' presence"
"waived respondents' presence"
"waive the respondents' presence"
"waived the respondents' presence"
"waived their presence"
"presence waived"
2. Any other guidance issued to immigration judges in the last 6 months on whether it is permissible to dismiss a respondent who has attended her trial when it is time for the oral decision.
The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.
In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 20 business days, as the statute requires.
Sincerely,
Matthew Hoppock
From: Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review
An acknowledgement letter, stating the request is being processed.
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on May 25, 2019. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response. You had assigned it reference number #2019-34516.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on May 25, 2019. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response. You had assigned it reference number #2019-34516.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on May 25, 2019. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response. You had assigned it reference number #2019-34516.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on May 25, 2019. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response. You had assigned it reference number #2019-34516.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on May 25, 2019. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response. You had assigned it reference number #2019-34516.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on May 25, 2019. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response. You had assigned it reference number #2019-34516.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review
Matthew a search has been initiated, and we await results. This is #21 of 126 pending complex cases. Wr/JRS
-
image001
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on May 25, 2019. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response. You had assigned it reference number #2019-34516.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on May 25, 2019. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response. You had assigned it reference number #2019-34516.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review
Matthew, please see FOIA response attached.
Wr/
Joseph R. Schaaf
Supervisory Attorney-Advisor
Executive Office for Immigration Review
-
~WRD296
From: Matthew Hoppock
The agency's redactions citing B5 appear to be inappropriate. In the attached e-mail exchange, which begins in 2017, an IJ appears to be discussing with an ACIJ the past practice of allowing parties to leave the courtroom. ACIJ Santoro responds about his past practice "I actually have done what you suggest as well" with the rest redacted. From the context this doesn't appear to be a discussion of deliberative process (considering future action to take) but of past practice. Discussion of past practice is not exempt under B5. The redaction of these 2017 e-mail messages appears to be improper.
The second second redactinos in the 2019 e-mails is also inappropriate. The May 15, 2019 e-mail from Theresa Scala to Mindy Hoeppner is again the past tense - it says "I informed him of your [redacted]." This is not subject to deliberative process either, because again it is talking about past practice. The reply from Richard Zanfardino is also redacted completely, but it doesn't appear to be discussing future policy decisions or deliberative or privileged materials. From Scala's reply "let me know if this happens," it appears what Zanfardino was writing about was a practice he had observed in his own courtroom. That information is not privileged or protected and should not have been redacted under Code B5.
From:
The Office of Information Policy has received your FOIA Appeal. Please see the attached acknowledgment letter.
From: Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review
The Office of Information Policy has made its final determination on your FOIA Appeal Number A-2020-00604 . A copy of this determination is enclosed for your review, along with any enclosures, if applicable. Thank you.
Files
pages