Immigration Attorneys' Perceptions and Attitudes About Delays in Removal Proceeding Hearings.

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Every organization needs adequate resources to function well and complete its

mission (Bryson, 2011; Burke, 2011; Mikesell, 2011). However, within the United States

immigration courts system, there appears to be an inherent and systemic problem with

backlogged deportation cases and immigration hearings being delayed for years (Sol,

2016). According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE, 2016), more

financial support is needed to optimize the agency’s performance. Immigration courts are

dealing with numerous caseloads and the priority of the courts is to handle the cases of

unaccompanied children before solving the existing removal proceeding cases (Kaplan,

2014; Rodriguez, 2013a). Rodriguez (2013a) reported that the problem of immigration

goes beyond border security, immigration scams, deportation, employment of

undocumented immigrants by certain companies, and controversial laws.

The problems that exist in immigration courts are complex. Not only do the

delays in court cases have the potential to cause operational issues affecting immigration

judges, attorneys, and their clients, but society as a whole (Rodriguez, 2013a; Sol, 2016).

Immigration courts currently do not have adequate staffing to handle the significant

number of cases (ICE, 2016). There is a need to explore the effects of delay cases in

immigration courts and the effects it may have, not only on the relationship between

lawyers and their clients, but also between policymakers, court officials, and lawyers.

Delays in hearing cases are causing backlogs throughout the system without any

potential remediation in sight. In addition, there has been a significant increase in the

number of pending immigration cases. According to the Transactional Records Access

Clearinghouse (TRAC, 2017), a Syracuse University nonprofit, the overall number of

pending cases in the United States for 2016 was 496,704 and 610,524 in 2017, thus, a

22.9% increase (p. 1). The State of Texas had the second highest pending cases, with

87,088 pending cases in 2016 and 100,510 pending cases in 2017; thus, a 15.4% increase

(TRAC, 2017, p.1). The State of California had the highest number of pending cases,

with 93,466 in 2016 and 114,974 in 2017, thus, as 23% increase (TRAC, 2017, p.1). The

immigration court in the State of Texas, which was the focus of this study, had 39,968

pending cases in 2016 and 48,701 pending cases in 2017, thus, a 21.8% increase (TRAC,

2017, p.1). The number of immigration courts and judges vary by state, with Texas

having 9 immigration courts and 45 immigration judges (United States Department of

Justice [DOJ], 2017a). To handle the undocumented immigration cases in the

immigration court in Texas that was the focus of this study, there is one immigration

court with eight immigration judges and a processing center with three immigration

judges (DOJ, 2017a). Based on TRAC 2017 statistics, undocumented immigrants, judges,

and lawyers had to wait an average of 854 days for an immigration case to be resolved (p.

2). Cervantes, Mejia, and Mena (2010) highlighted that for the undocumented

immigrants, the case proceedings can affect them psychologically, financially, and

socially.

In this study, I focused on understanding the perceptions and attitudes of

immigration attorneys about delays in removal proceeding hearings in an immigration

court in Texas with one of the highest numbers of pending cases. Although there is an

abundance of literature on immigration reform and deportation issues, research is lacking

on the deportation and immigration caseload problem. In addition, policymakers have not

put in place safeguards to prevent the current overloading of the immigration system.

Therefore, understanding the caseload situation from the point of view of immigration

lawyers will help to fill a gap in the literature. In addition, findings from this case study

may help decision makers to better understand the effects of delays in removal

proceeding hearings and to focus attention and resources in helping to reduce the backlog

and improve the judicial process. In Chapter 1, I include the background of the study,

problem statement, purpose of the study, research questions, theoretical foundation,

nature of the study, definition of terms, assumptions, scope and delimitations, limitations,

significance of the study, and a summary.

Background of the Study

Scholars have analyzed immigration policy issues from different viewpoints (see

Brabeck & Xu, 2010; Cervantes et al., 2010; Rodriguez, 2013a). While some scholars

focused on deficiencies in immigration laws and policies (Rodriguez, 2013a), others

explored the psychological trauma of deportation on undocumented immigrants and their

loved ones (Brabeck & Xu, 2010; Cervantes et al., 2010). Deportation is a difficult

process that undocumented immigrants go through (Coutin, 2013). Findings from

numerous studies have found different effects of immigration policy on individuals and

entities involved in removal proceeding cases (Aliverti, 2012; Das, 2008; Fekete, 2011;

Gupta, 2013; Newstead & Frisso, 2013; Pope & Garrett, 2012).

Deficiencies in federal immigration policies have resulted in some states such as

Alabama, Arizona, and Texas, enacting their own immigration rules (Rodriguez, 2013a).

Rodriguez (2013a) related that conflicts can occur between states and the federal

government when state regulations do not align with federal rules. Hidalgo (2014)

addressed states’ role in immigration regulation issues. The author noted that states such

as Arizona created one of the harshest immigration laws known as Arizona’s Senate Bill

1070 (Arizona S.B. 1070), which made it a crime to be an undocumented immigrant.

Hidalgo reported that the bill sparked similar laws in Utah, Indiana, South Carolina, and

Georgia. Hidalgo explained that Alabama’s House Bill 56 (H.B. 56), the state’s version

of Arizona S.B. 1070, was considered more draconian. The author shared that Alabama’s

lower courts dismantled most of H.B. 56, and the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) refused

to hear Alabama’s appeal of the lower court ruling. Kennedy (2012) reported that the

SCOTUS decided that many of the invasive elements in Arizona S.B. 1070 were

unconstitutional.

Immigration reform remains one of the biggest issues the United States has faced

in the past few decades (Rodriguez, 2013b). Many factors contribute to the complexity of

the immigration policy reforms in the United States (Garcia, 2012), and the management

of the 11.1 to 11.4 million undocumented immigrants residing in this country remains

one of those factors (Gasson, 2017, para. 3; Krogstad, Passel, & Cohn, 2017, para. 2).

ICE officials, whose responsibilities include identification, apprehension, and removal of

undocumented immigrants, especially those who pose a threat to homeland security,

remove thousands of undocumented immigrants every year (ICE, 2016). At the removal

proceedings hearing, individuals appear before an immigration judge who decides

whether they should stay in the country or be deported (Herreria, 2017).

Immigration judges and attorneys remain the key players in removal proceeding

hearings as they deal with deportation cases on a regular basis. Judges lead the

deportation hearings procedure by monitoring courts cases, such as the United States v.

Arita-Campos (2010). Herreria (2017) explained that the immigration judge listens to

arguments from both the government’s attorney and the undocumented immigrant’s

lawyer. Immigration attorneys represent undocumented immigrants by preparing

deportation cases for their clients, providing legal advice, and serving as an intermediary

between immigrants and the courts (DOJ, 2009). Sol (2016) noted that immigration court

proceedings are civil processes; thus, respondents are not entitled to free legal

representation even if they are poor. On the other hand, Sol explained that they are

eligible for free representation in criminal proceedings. After hearing the arguments with

supporting evidence, the immigration judge makes a decision to remove the

undocumented immigrant or allow the individual to stay in the United States (DOJ,

2010).

However, an unprecedented number of immigration cases, along with a shortage

of judges and interpreters, means that it can take years before some cases are heard (Sol,

2016). Sol (2016) explained that caseloads are increasing as there is a huge influx of

refugees from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, which includes many mothers

traveling with young children, and they are assigned high priority for court scheduling. In

addition, Sol noted that migration from Central America continues to increase as refugees

flee violence, poverty, and chaos. Sol described Dallas, Texas courtrooms as chaotic and

crowded, with immigrants and their worried families. Sol noted that some undocumented

immigrants as well as attorneys do not show up for the hearings. Sol reported that in

Dallas, judges were forced to reschedule hearings due to the lack of interpreters for some

languages, such as Mam or Quiche for Guatemalans. The author also discussed

continuous delays, where some cases continued to drag on even when Dallas-based

government attorneys agreed with clients’ attorneys about what should happen next.

Unrepresented immigrants have a greater chance of losing the case and being

removed from the United States (Sol, 2016). The TRAC (2015b) presented data on the

status of 26,343 specially flagged adults with children proceedings. Although most cases

were still pending, findings indicated that less than 30% of these families were able to

find representation (para. 3). In addition, without representation, women with children

almost never won their cases even after they were able to demonstrate credible fear of

returning to their own country. Specifically, the TRAC data indicated that only 1.5%

were allowed to stay (para. 3). Findings also indicated that although few decisions had

occurred in represented cases, the win rate was 26.3% (para. 3).

Immigration policy is very complex as there are many critical elements to

consider in resolving the delay crisis. Research is lacking on the deficiencies in court

operations that create delays in deportation hearings, thus, further research is needed. In

this case study, I addressed this gap in the literature by exploring immigration attorneys’

perceptions and attitudes about delays in removal proceeding hearings in an immigration

court in Texas.

Problem Statement

Immigration courts in the United Sates are struggling to resolve 610,524 removal

proceedings cases with approximately 330 judges located in 58 immigration courts

nationwide (DOJ, 2017a, 2017b, p. 1; TRAC, 2017, p.1). Thus, immigration judges have

to adjudicate a significant number of deportation cases with a very limited number of

judges (Sol, 2016; TRAC, 2015a). The backlog in immigration courts for removal

proceeding hearings has increased steadily for nearly a decade and has reach an all-time

high (TRAC, 2015a, 2017). In 2015, the wait time was 635 calendar days compared to

854 days in 2017 (TRAC, 2015a, para. 2, 2017a, p. 2). However, it is important to note

that the 854-day wait time only measures how long undocumented immigrants have

already been waiting and not how much longer they will have to wait before their cases

are resolved (TRAC, 2015a, 2017a).

The severity of the rapidly growing crisis was revealed in January 2015 when the

court issued thousands of letters notifying individuals that their cases would be delayed

for about 5 more years, until November 29, 2019 (TRAC, 2015a). The Executive Office

for Immigration Review (EOIR) that operates the immigration courts explained that the

move was needed to make room in its hearing schedule for higher priority cases due to

the increase of unaccompanied minors and mothers with children who crossed the border

in 2014 (TRAC, 2015a). The case delay worsened as it went up 11.9% since the

beginning of the 2015 fiscal year and it was about a third (32.7%) higher than it was at

the beginning of fiscal year 2014 (TRAC, 2015a, para. 4). A total of 55,676 cases (13.2%

of all hearings) were scheduled 1,551 days out, for November 29, 2019, the date set in

that initial wave of court notices issued in January 2015 (TRAC, 2015a, para. 8).

However, thousands of hearings will not begin until even later, where the wait time for

10% of the hearings ranged from 1,552 days to 1,766 days into the future (TRAC, 2015a,

para. 8).

Both lawmakers and federal agencies have struggled with implementing new

immigration policies due to the complication of the problem (Collinson, 2014; Meissner,

Meyers, Papademetriou, & Fix, 2006). Meissner et al. (2006) noted widespread

skepticism about the government’s capacity to secure the southern border and manage

immigration. According to ICE (2014), the number of undocumented immigrants living

in the United States has been increasing, with Krogstad et al. (2017) reporting 11 million

undocumented immigrants in 2015 and 11.3 million in 2016 (para. 1-2). Based on these

statistics, there is an urgent need for policymakers to work together to resolve

immigration issues, such as deportation policy issues as delays negatively affects all

parties involved in the deportation process including immigration attorneys and

undocumented immigrants.

An enormous gap exists between the number of pending cases and the number of

immigration judges (TRAC, 2015a, 2015b). Another problem is the operational and

managerial functions of the immigration court system throughout the United States (U.S.

Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2006). Although there is an abundance of

literature about immigration policy issues in general and deportation problems, little is

known about the overwhelming case backlogs in immigration courts and the effect of this

backlog of cases on undocumented immigrants and their attorneys, as well as possible

solutions to the delay crisis. Using Kettl’s (2002, 2015) transformation of governance

theory as the theoretical foundation, a case study was needed that explored immigration

attorneys’ perceptions and attitudes about delays in removal proceeding hearings in an

immigration court in Texas with one of the highest numbers of pending cases.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore the perceptions and

attitudes of 10 immigration attorneys about delays in removal proceeding hearings in an

immigration court in Texas with one of the highest numbers of pending cases. Both the

general public and political leaders are trying to understand immigration policy issues

and caseload backlogs in immigration courts is one of these policy issues (Collinson,

2014; Meissner et al., 2006; Sol, 2016). Patton (2002) argued that a case study approach

is a sound mechanism for researchers to have an in-depth comprehension of a complex

social phenomenon. The issue that was investigated in this study was the myriad of

backlogged cases that an immigration court in Texas need to adjudicate. However, an

assumption and a possible cause is that these courts lack sufficient manpower to operate

effectively and efficiently. In this case study, I explored the opinions of immigration

attorneys who play a relevant role in the deportation process in an immigration court in

Texas because the state of Texas has the second largest number of deportation pending

cases, with 100,510 pending cases in 2017 (TRAC, 2017, p.1). Kettl’s (2015)

transformation of governance theory served as a theoretical foundation for this study. I

collected data through in-depth face-to-face interviews with a snowball sample of 10

immigration attorneys, deportation hearing observations, and court document reviews.

Data were managed with NVivo and analyzed using the open coding technique.

Research Questions

In this qualitative case study, I addressed one central research question: What are

the perceptions and attitudes of immigration attorneys about delays in removal

proceeding hearings in an immigration court in Texas?

Three subquestions were considered:

1. How do immigration attorneys perceive the effects of delays on the welfare of

immigrant clients?

2. How do immigration attorneys perceive the effects of delays on client-

attorney relationships?

3. What are the perceptions of immigration attorneys about potential solutions to

the delay crisis?

Theoretical Foundation

The study will aim at exploring delays in the deportation hearings process from

the point of view of immigration lawyers. A common perception by some in the general

public and various educational institutions has been that critical delays in court cases

have had a detrimental effect on all parties (Fekete, 2011). As a result, the familiarity of

immigration attorneys with deportation hearing process and practices will shape their

perceptions about the hearings delays crisis. These perceptions will be a tool in this case

study to have a deeper understanding about the delay phenomenon. The current

administration of immigration courts falls under the jurisdiction and control of the Office

of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ), who reports to the EOIR. In addition, the EOIR

is an office of the DOJ (DOJ, 2015).

Each of these administrations has the potential to play a relevant role in the

success of immigration courts nationwide because they are connected. Kettl’s (2002,

2015) transformation of governance theory was used as the theoretical foundation in this

case study. Kettl indicated that the current hierarchical form of government needs

upgrading to the 21st century, with many of the governmental agencies, including the

courts, needing to adapt to change. Kettl’s transformation of governance theory provided

a theoretical lens in the study to interpret the means through which courts and attorneys

can optimize their practices and resolve delay issues. The dysfunction in immigration

courts relates to issues of accountability, coordination, and control within the

administrations. Kettl emphasized the relevance of capacity, coordination, and control in

the effectiveness of contemporary public administration. The success and effectiveness of

an organization stem from many factors such as organizational structure, culture,

organizational leadership, vitality, and meaningfulness of the organization (Burke, 2011).

Kettl’s transformation of governance theory is further discussed in detailed in Chapter 2.

Nature of the Study

I used a qualitative case design to obtain the perceptions and attitudes of 10

immigration attorneys concerning delays in removal proceeding hearings in an

immigration court in Texas. I focused a Texas immigration court system and the

deportation cases that have been in the court for years and postponed by the court. The

goal was to describe the opinions of immigration attorneys on those specific cases and

why those cases were delayed, how the delays affected immigrant clients and client-

attorney relationships, as well as potential solutions to the delay crisis.

The rationale behind the use of qualitative case design was to have a deeper

understanding of the issues and to discover the answers (Patton, 2002). With this study, I

garnered a complete comprehension of the issues at hand, thus, providing me with the

ability to answer the research question. I used face-to-face semistructured interviews,

deportation hearing observations, and court document reviews to collect the data. These

three instruments allowed me to collect enough information to reach saturation. Although

qualitative design does have multiple aspects, I choose to focus specifically on the case

study design because it allowed me to focus on a specific bounded system, which

provided me with a more in-depth interpretation of the phenomenon.

Scholars such as Maxwell (2013) articulated the role of case study in qualitative

inquiry. The unit of study included removal proceedings pending cases that have been

delayed by the courts. An analysis of these cases through the viewpoint of immigration

attorneys helped in understanding how long the cases have been in courts. The use of the

case study design allowed me to examine the jurisdiction that has the largest number of

removal proceedings cases in the state of Texas. Creswell (2013) pointed out that case

study methodology usually fit the inquiry in which the researcher intends to explore “a

real life, contemporary bounded system or multiple bounded systems” (p. 97). The

bounded system involved in this study was an immigration court in Texas. I used

snowball sampling to recruit immigration lawyers who practice throughout the

immigration court in Texas.

I transcribed the interviews, deportation hearing observations, and data from court

document reviews and managed the data with NVivo. I used the open coding technique to

analyze the data and identify themes and patterns. I conducted the study in accordance

with Walden University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines to ensure the

ethical protection of research participants. I discuss the nature of the study in further

detail in Chapter 3.

Definition of Terms

Alien: “An individual who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national” (Internal

Revenue Service, 2017, para. 2).

Amnesty: In relation to immigration, amnesty refers to granting legal status to a

group of individuals unlawfully present in the United States (Spalding, 2007).

Asylum: Immigrants may be eligible for protection and immunity from removal if

they can show that they are refugees (GAO, 2006).

Caseload: Cases that have not been completed and waiting adjudication (GAO,

2006).

Credible fear: Immigrant expresses a fear of persecution or torture, and the

intention is to apply for asylum (GAO, 2006).

Decision: A immigration judge determination and order arrived after

consideration of facts and law (GAO, 2006).

Detainees: Immigrants in the custody of DHS or other entities (GAO, 2006).

In absentia: This hearing occurs when the immigrant fails to attend the hearing

“and the immigration judge conducts the hearing without the immigrant present and

orders the immigrant removed from the United States” (GAO, 2006, p. 38).

Master calendar hearing: The first appearance of the immigrant before the

immigration court (GAO, 2006).

Motion: A written or verbal request that an immigrant’s representative or the

attorney of the government can file in court to accomplish a goal (GAO, 2006).

Notice to appear (NTA): DHS officials file Form I-862 in court to start the

removal proceeding process (GAO, 2006).

Refugees: Individuals who are outside their country of nationality or, in the case

of people having no nationality, are outside any county in which such individuals last

habitually resided, and who are unable or unwilling to return to, and are unable or

unwilling to avail themselves “of the protection of, that country because of persecution or

a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership

in a particular social group, or political opinion” (GAO, 2006, p. 34).

Relief: Immigrants in removal proceeding can claim relief from removal such as

asylum, adjustment of status, cancellation of removal, or other remedies they might be

entitled to under immigration laws (GAO, 2006).

Removal proceedings: A removal proceeding happens when the U.S. Department

of Homeland Security (DHS) decides to remove an individual from the United States due

to his illegal status or other legal reasons (GAO, 2006).

Transformation of governance theory: Kettl’s (2002, 2015) theory reconciles

effective administration with the requirements of democratic government. Kettl (2002,

2015) suggested that administrators and theorists need to focus on governance, or the

links between government and its broader environment, which includes political, social,

and administrative, through which social action occurs.

Undocumented immigrants: Refers to foreign-born individuals who do not have a

legal right to be or remain in the United States (Gasson, 2017).

Voluntary departure: An immigrant agrees to depart from the United States

without an order of removal, which “may or may not have been preceded by a hearing

before an immigration judge. An immigrant allowed to voluntarily depart concedes

removability but is not barred from seeking admission at a port of entry in the future”

(GAO, 2006, p. 40).

Assumptions

One of the assumptions in this study pertained to the extensive caseload backlog

in immigration courts proceedings across the United States (TRAC, 2017). Considering

the current delay crisis in immigration courts nationwide, it was assumed that extensive

delays on removal proceedings cases might have a negative effect on the undocumented

immigrants, as well as the operations of the courts and the activities of the attorneys.

Therefore, the overall governance and administration of immigration courts in the United

States might need an urgent transformation to achieve common goals. It was assumed

that an immigration court in Texas is among the jurisdictions that will benefit from

significant changes as it has the largest number of backlogged case in the State of Texas

(see TRAC, 2017).

Creswell (2013) discussed the philosophical assumptions linked to qualitative

studies, which include ontological assumptions, epistemological assumptions, axiological

assumptions, and methodological assumptions. Each of these assumptions covered a

relevant element in this study. The ontological assumption focuses on how the

participants, specifically, immigration attorneys perceive extensive delays in deportation

hearings. It was assumed that participants may not have the same perspective about social

issues because the case backlog issues may not affect them in the same way and this may

influence their views. In addition, I assumed that immigration attorneys had extensive

experience about removal proceeding hearings and were willing to participate due to the

significance of the study.

The epistemological assumption centers on knowledge constructed through data

and evidence (Creswell, 2013). In this study, data collection included in-depth face-to-

face interviews with participants, deportation hearing observations, and court document

reviews. The data that I gathered from my interviews with participants as well as the

deportation hearing observations and court document reviews provided me with the

knowledge necessary to answer the central research question and three subquestions. I

assumed that the interview questions, deportation hearing observations, and court

document reviews were sound data collection tools to answer the research questions.

The axiological assumption pertains to the role of the researcher in conducting the

study and the value of the study in society. My several years of experience working in the

immigration field as a senior immigration assistant contributed to my credibility and

comprehension of challenges faced by undocumented immigrants as well as immigration

attorneys. However, I used specific strategies such as reflexivity, which pertains to

researchers’ self-awareness and strategies for managing possible biasing factors within

the study (Jootun, McGhee, & Marland, 2009; Porter, 1993); thus, revealing any

experiences, biases, and values pertaining to the research topic. I assumed that the

interview questions were easy to understand, which allowed the participants to have a

sound interpretation of the questions and provide honest answers.

Scholars, such as Patton (2002) and Maxwell (2013), pointed out the role of the

researcher in a qualitative study as the primary data collection instrument. In applying the

axiological assumptions in this qualitative study, my role as a researcher was to be the

key data collection instrument. Thus, I ensured that the data collected was trustworthy,

credible, and without bias. One aim of the study was to bring attention to the removal

proceeding hearings backlog; thus, providing policymakers with concrete ideas, possible

solutions, and a better understanding about the seriousness of this issue.

The methodological assumption lies in the inductive process (Creswell, 2013).

This inductive process was based on my observations and the collaborative interactions

with the participants. Doing so allowed me to assess potential patterns and regularities.

These patterns and regularities were used to generate conclusions. While the findings in

this study cannot be statistically generalized, the findings may be analytically generalized

(Yin, 2010). This is discussed further in the limitations section.

Scope and Delimitations

The scope of this case study included perceptions and attitudes of 10 immigration

attorneys about delays in removal proceeding hearings in an immigration court in Texas,

effects of delays on the welfare of immigrant clients and client-attorney relationships, and

potential solutions to the delay crisis. Thus, data collection included in-depth face-to-face

interviews with a snowball sample of 10 immigration attorneys who provided clients with

representation at an immigration court in Texas, and deportation hearing observations and

court document reviews from the immigration court. Excluded from participating in this

study were lawyers who were not immigration attorneys, attorneys who were retired, and

attorneys who did not represent undocumented immigrants in an immigration court in

Texas such as those in other cities, states, or countries. I did not include anyone with

whom I have a personal relationship in my study, which included family members,

friends, coworkers, or professional and personal associates. This prevented perceived

coercion to participate due to any existing or expected relationship between the

participants and me.

Limitations

The qualitative case study design has both strengths and limitations (Patton,

2002). A strength of the case study design is the ability of researchers to have a deeper

exploration of the phenomenon being studied (Patton, 2002). In doing so, the researchers

focus the research on a smaller sample. However, such a situation can affect the

generalization of the findings since the results do not represent the general population

(Patton, 2002). According to Yin (2012), case studies tend to generalize to other

situations based on analytic claims. Yin noted a conceptual claim where researchers show

how the findings from their study have informed the relationship among a particular set

of concepts, theoretical constructs, or sequence of events. Yin reported that the second

step refers to researchers applying the same theoretical propositions to implicate other

situations outside the completed case study where similar concepts, constructs, or

sequences might be relevant. Although the findings from this case study cannot be

statistically generalized, they could have implications for other situations based on

analytical claims. Due to small sample size of immigration attorneys, future study could

expand the sample population across cities and states to achieve a broader understanding

of immigration attorneys’ perceptions and attitudes about delays in removal proceeding

hearings experiences. A different sampling strategy could also be used, such as maximum

variation sampling and purposeful random sampling.

Besides the issue of generalization, the bias of researchers remains a serious threat

to the quality and credibility of the study (Maxwell, 2013). Therefore, I had a duty to

ensure that the data represented the actual statements of the participants and the

deportation hearing observations and court document reviews were transcribed correctly.

Maxwell (2013) argued that researchers should refrain from modifying the meaning of

statements or any data since the analysis is focused on the meanings. The modification of

the meaning jeopardizes the quality, reliability, and trustworthiness of the data (Patton,

2002). Bias might push researchers to apply their own meanings to the data (Patton,

2002). In doing so, they ignore the principles of trustworthiness, which are critical for the

overall success of the study (Patton, 2002). I used specific strategies such as reflexivity

where I revealed any experiences, biases, and values pertaining to this study. Patton

(2002) stated that qualitative researchers use their five senses in collecting relevant data

that help answer the research questions. This principle implies good listening and

observation skills, paying attention to details, and good note taking skills. Therefore, I

properly transcribed participants’ actual accounts, organized and managed the data, and

conducted data analysis.

Social desirability bias was also considered as the immigration attorneys may

want to be perceived positively, so they may not respond honestly to the interview

questions. However, it was assumed that participants honestly and openly answered the

interview questions by sharing their perceptions about the questions asked. There are also

limitations with self-report data for the interviews as participants may not accurately or

fully self-evaluate themselves; however, it was assumed that participants accurately and

fully self-evaluated themselves.

Significance of the Study

Immigration policy issues continue to divide political leaders and the general

public in the United States (Rodriguez, 2013b). There are many elements to consider in

conducting a comprehensive immigration reform. Most of the existing literature focuses

on the issues of deportation, the border crisis, conflicts between state and federal

government, and harsh treatment of immigrants in society (Das, 2008; Garcia, 2012;

Rodriguez, 2013b).

The implications for positive social change are directed at immigration

policymakers and decision makers as focusing on the perceptions and attitudes of

immigration attorneys about delays in removal proceeding hearings in an immigration

court in Texas could be used by policymakers to take a closer look at the current

deportation hearings crisis. In doing so, decision makers might consider the perceptions

of immigration attorneys about the dysfunctional court system and take appropriate

measures to reduce the removal proceeding hearings backlog and improve the judicial

process. Therefore, unlike previous studies, the findings from this case study added new

knowledge to the literature and could be used as a starting point in generating a dialogue

about the overwhelming backlog cases in immigration courts. By better understanding the

effects of delays in removal proceeding hearings, decision makers may focus attention

and resources in helping to reduce the backlog. Immigration lawyers are experts in this

matter and their input could be used to improve removal proceeding hearings policies and

regulations.

Findings from the study may help policymakers, lawmakers, immigration officials

and officers, and the general public understand that immigration problems go beyond the

border crisis. There are other major issues that affect undocumented immigrants on a

daily basis such as hearings delays. The implementation of new policies requires the

cooperation and collaboration of all stakeholders. Therefore, it is important for decision

makers to further understand the effects of the hearing delay crisis, which may encourage

them to build a sound strategic plan to resolve the problem. In doing so, they can adopt

new laws and policies, which may result in positive social change. Along with the public

policy and administration field, a wide array of other fields might be interested in the

study’s findings, to include the fields of criminal justice, law, and homeland security. The

findings from the study are also applicable to many agencies and organizations to include

the immigration court in Texas that was the focus of this study, EOIR, DHS, and DOJ.

Summary

With the significant lack of immigration judges to hear cases, staffing and funding

for the immigration courts themselves, in addition to the added issue of postponement of

removal proceedings, immigration courts have become one of the most backlogged and

reportedly broken systems in U.S. history (Sol, 2016; TRAC, 2015a). There is a gap in

the literature that focuses on immigration attorneys’ perceptions and attitudes about

delays in removal proceeding hearings in an immigration court in Texas and this study

addressed that gap. Findings may be used by immigration policymakers to better

understand removal proceeding hearings backlogs and possible ways to alleviate the

stalemate that permeates immigration courts.

In Chapter 1, I include the background of the study, problem statement, purpose

of the study, research questions, theoretical foundation, nature of the study, definition of

terms, assumptions, scope and delimitations, limitations, significance of the study, and a

summary. In Chapter 2, I include the introduction, literature search strategy, theoretical

foundation, complexity of immigration policy issues reform, immigration court structure

and background of removal proceedings, immigration case rulings, recommendations to

reduce the delay crisis, and a summary and conclusions. In Chapter 3, I include the

research design and rationale, role of the researcher, methodology, issues of

trustworthiness, and a summary. In Chapter 4, I include the setting, demographics, data

collection, data analysis, evidence of trustworthiness, results, and a summary. In Chapter

5, I include the interpretation of the findings, limitations of the study, recommendations,

implications, and a conclusion.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore the perceptions and

attitudes of 10 immigration attorneys about delays in removal proceeding hearings in an

immigration court in Texas with one of the highest numbers of pending cases. Removal

proceeding hearing delays have direct and indirect effects on people’s lives. Officials at

the legislative and executive branches work with different organizations in the public and

private sectors to gather their inputs, which may help in making reasonable decisions

(Kerwin & Furlong, 2010). In the public sector, there are many entities such as the DHS,

EOIR, and ICE that are involved in the immigration policy implementation process

(Reasoner, 2011). For example, the DHS plays a relevant role in border security and

other issues related to illegal immigration (Reasoner, 2011).

The immigration courts in the United States are built to fail (Metcalf, 2011).

Metcalf (2011), a former immigration judge in Miami, Florida, and who served in several

posts at the DOJ, reported that immigration courts cannot perform their critical work due

to deception and disorder. Metcalf discussed weaknesses and the pervasive effects in

immigration courts. Metcalf noted that only a few immigrants who file lawsuits to remain

in the United States are deported even though immigration judges, after years of

litigation, had ordered them removed. The author further related that deportation orders

are rarely enforced, even against immigrants who did not show up for court or ignored

orders to leave the United States. Metcalf shared that 59% of immigrants who were

released to await hearings flee from removal proceedings because they believed there was

little chance of relief (p. 7). The author noted that they are rarely caught as they try to

stay under the radar for as long as possible, maybe until the next amnesty.

Immigration officials in the United States have used local law enforcement

agencies to aide them in their deportation efforts, and there is an estimated 300,000 to

450,000 convicted criminal immigrants who are eligible for deportation and are currently

residing in local jails and state and federal prisons across the country (Martinelli, 2017,

para. 36). ICE shares responsibility for enforcing U.S. immigration laws with U.S.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

(USCIS; ICE, 2017). For instance, once an immigrant is convicted by any state or federal

court of a felonious crime, they become a criminal alien, and are immediately reported to

ICE and immediately deported; after serving time for the crimes they have been

convicted of (United States of America v. Turner, 2010). Turner, who was originally from

Jamaica, but a permanent resident of the United States, is an example of immigrants who

have faced prosecution prior to deportation.

Scholars such as Rodriguez (2013a) have researched deficiencies in immigration

policies at both the federal and state levels. Kerwin and Furlong (2010) argued that one

way to tackle immigration problems is to implement sound public laws and policies. The

authors discussed the roles and responsibilities of both the federal and state governments

in creating new immigrations rules. Moreover, the authors emphasized challenges that

states might face in formulating new laws to solve immigration issues. Kerwin and

Furlong noted that it is important that state rules align with federal laws to avoid conflict

between the two levels of government.

Many court cases demonstrate complexities in removal proceedings process such

as in the United States v. Flores (2014), as some undocumented immigrants challenged

deportation hearings by filling motions to dismiss their cases due to certain procedural

errors conducted by the courts or their attorneys. Other undocumented immigrants choose

voluntary departure while awaiting their hearings dates in court such as in the United

States v. Miguel Garcia (2008). In United States v. Miguel Garcia (2008), Garcia

challenged his deportation decision the court rendered in 1999. Garcia argued that both

the immigration judge and his attorney failed to provide relevant information about his

constitutional rights under the fifth amendment and 8 U.S. Code § 1229c, regarding

voluntary departure. The court concurred with the defendant and granted his motion to

dismiss for procedural failure. The court decision in United States v. Jose Gomez-

Hernandez (2008) court case was similar to the United States v. Miguel Garcia (2008)

verdict. Gomez-Hernandez was deported several times by ICE officials after illegally

entering the United States. The defendant argued that his fourth deportation order was

unfair because the judge did not inform him his rights about voluntary departure and

waiver. The court agreed with the defendant and granted his motion to dismiss after

analyzing the evidence.

Immigration enforcement is often cumbersome and dysfunctional (Metcalf, 2011;

Reasoner, 2011). Bendix (2017) reported that ICE officials have arrested more than

41,300 undocumented immigrants in the first 100 days since President Trump signed two

executive orders tightening border security and cracking down on sanctuary cities (para.

1). Bendix noted that this represents a 38% increase from the same time period in 2016,

when ICE arrested slightly more than 30,000 undocumented immigrants (para. 1). Bendix

shared that Homan, ICE’s acting director, attributed the spike in arrests to agents and

officers being given clear direction to focus on threats to public safety and national

security. Bendix further noted that approximately 75% of undocumented immigrants

arrested between January 22, 2017 and April 29, 2017, were convicted criminals,

marking a 20% increase in criminal arrests since 2016 (para. 2). However, Bendix related

that only 2,700 of these convictions were for violent crimes, including homicide, rape,

kidnapping, and assault. On the other hand, Bendix explained that arrests of

undocumented immigrants whose only crime is living illegally in the United States have

risen by an even greater margin, where between January 22, 2017 and April 29, 2017,

ICE officials conducted around 10,800 noncriminal arrests, compared to only 4,200 in

2016, thus, a 150% increase (para. 2).

Padilla, the president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, called

President Trump’s plan “a blueprint for mass deportation,” a claim both the White House

and the DHS have denounced (Bendix, 2017, para. 5). Bendix (2017) reported that

despite these new security measures, Homan told reporters that deportations have actually

declined by 12% under the Trump administration because more undocumented

immigrants are being arrested in the interior of the country rather than along the border.

As a result, they often face lengthy hearings in the U.S. immigration court system

(Bendix, 2017).

Immigration attorneys are one of the most important stakeholders in removal

proceedings. Therefore, it was essential to understand their perceptions and attitudes

about delays in removal proceeding hearings in an immigration court in Texas as findings

may be used to encourage immigration policymakers to focus attention and resources in

helping to reduce the backlog and improve the judicial process. In Chapter 2, I include

the introduction, literature search strategy, theoretical foundation, complexity of

immigration policy issues reform, immigration court structure and background of

removal proceedings, immigration case rulings, recommendations to reduce the delay

crisis, and a summary and conclusions.

Literature Search Strategy

The literature search strategies for this research included a comprehensive search

in Walden University Library databases to include LexisNexis Academic, SAGE

Premier, ProQuest Central, Thoreau Multi-Database Search, and Academic Search

Complete. In addition, I also conducted searches through Google Scholar, the National

Association of Immigration Judges, Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, and

government organizations such as the DOJ, ICE, GAO, and DHS.

The search terms included undocumented immigrants, removal proceeding

hearings, removal proceeding delays, immigration court proceedings, immigration courts

and backlogs, immigration enforcement, deportations, immigration attorneys,

immigration judges, federal and state cases and regulations, EOIR, immigration court,

ICE, and Kettl and transformation of governance theory. In many of the articles found,

the authors provided current and relevant information on delays in removal proceeding

hearings. Furthermore, I discussed relevant court cases to provide in-depth understanding

of the removal proceeding hearings.

Theoretical Foundation

Kettl’s (2002, 2015) transformation of governance theory served as the theoretical

foundation for this case study. In this section, I discuss the following subsections:

transformation of governance theory and research application of transformation of

governance theory.

Transformation of Governance Theory

The dysfunction in the immigration court system indicates a need for

administration and governance transformation; thus, Kettl’s (2002, 2015) transformation

of governance theory was applicable to this study. Kettl (2015) defined the main 21st

century management problem as one where no one agency is responsible to solve it as

important problems often do not fall neatly in the purview of a single government

department or agency, such as the issue of delays in removal proceeding hearings that

were explored in this case study. Kettl noted that the government’s response to a problem

must involve teamwork between agencies who represent different jurisdictions, such as

government and nongovernmental agencies and organizations. The author argued that the

problem for public administrators is that even though they can do their job by the book,

they may not get their job done properly.

Scholars have addressed the concept of public administration and governance

differently (Kettl, 2015). Kettl (2015) noted that the founding fathers did not perceive the

concept of government and administration the same, but Alexander Hamilton and James

Wilson embraced the notion of big and powerful government. On the other hand, Kettl

related that Thomas Jefferson was an advocate for a smaller government, whereas James

Madison believed in balance of powers between the key players.

Governments face several complex interwoven problems, such as new demands

from citizens but also the demand for lower taxes, more complex programs but also the

pressure to reduce the size of the bureaucracy, as well as the struggle to deal with the

unforeseen effects in the effort to build more adequate management strategies (Kettl,

2015). In this case study, government officials face the problem of extreme case backlogs

for removal proceeding hearings. According to Kettl (2015), one of the core issues that

public administrators of the 21st century face is operational management. The current

delay crisis could be attributed to poor management within court operations. Kettl argued

that management problems stem from lack of responsibility and accountability when no

one takes the lead to resolve issues. Kettl’s argument is applicable to situations that

immigration courts are facing nationwide, such as delays in the deportation hearing

process. Case backlogs has been happening for years (GAO, 2006) and the delegation of

authority among government and nongovernmental entities appear to be the problem.

Some nonprofit organizations provide undocumented immigrants with a lot of

support by giving them shelter, food, education, and helping with other issues (Bernard,

2015). Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that all these agencies may contribute to the

advancement of people in society, which goes hand in hand with democratic governance

and principles. The participation of these entities in immigration procedures might

strengthen the respect of fundamental rights that the founding fathers fought for. It is very

difficult for one agency to handle a complex issue like this surrounded by controversies

and intense arguments. However, it appears that a successful partnership and

collaboration between public agencies and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)

require coordination, effective and efficient communication, management, and

accountability (Bernard, 2015).

The case backlog problem in immigration courts is getting worse due to the

inability of government entities to deliver quality services (Metcalf, 2011). Kettl (2015)

noted that government agencies provide goods and services to the public on a regular

basis and that these agencies and NGOs do not use adequate strategies, tactics, and tools

in delivering effective and efficient services and goods to the public. Kettl discussed

deficiencies in service delivery. Kerwin and Furlong (2010) related that both the

legislative and executive branches delegate some powers to other agencies to deliver

goods and services to the public, and execute and implement rules and regulations.

However, Kettl claimed that delegation can create more problems than resolve issues due

to lack of coordination, accountability, responsibility, and oversight.

The role of the immigration courts is to resolve legal disputes between

government attorneys and undocumented immigrants in a timely fashion (TRAC, 2015a).

However, with excessive wait times, undocumented immigrants have to wait an

extremely long time before they appear before the immigration judge (TRAC, 2015a).

Kettl (2015) discussed the inability for public administrators to get the job done. Such a

situation is indicative of difficulties for government agencies, particularly immigration

courts, to get the job completed effectively and efficiently.

Authority is not enough and the hierarchal approach that has been used by local

and national government entities does not work anymore for 21st century public

administrators (Kettl, 2015). According to Kettl (2015), in American politics, there are no

clear-cut boundaries between policymaking and policy execution, which the author

referred to as fuzzy boundaries, thus, the need for accountability in government. Social

issues, needs, and demands of the 21st century might require public administrators to use

the concepts of authority and hierarchy differently (Kettl, 2015). Such a principle is

critical in transforming governance; for example, Kettl argued that interpersonal and

interorganizational techniques would benefit public administrators more than the

principle of authority.

Transparency, effective communication, and performance management play a

significant role in the success of any organization, whether public, private, or nonprofit

(Kettl, 2015). Kettl (2015) reported that these elements are adequate tools for public

administrators to resolve policy issues that affect the general public. The author noted

that the advancement of technology has changed the organization, management, and

circulation of information. In this study, I sought to understand whether there were flaws

in the management of information in immigration courts and whether such flaws had

played a role in the creation of extensive backlog cases and delays in immigration courts.

Immigration attorneys are knowledgeable about issues pertaining to removal proceeding

hearings. In addition, immigration courts need to recruit more judges to tackle the

overwhelming number of deportation cases. President Trump’s aggressive immigration

enforcement has overwhelmed an already taxed court system as the Trump administration

temporarily reassigned judges to detention centers in Southern California, Arizona, New

Mexico, and Texas to handle cases primarily involving recent border-crossers (Times

Editorial Board, 2017). However, the problem is that fewer people are getting caught at

the border, so moving judges there makes little sense, and is only based on optics to look

like a commitment to stronger and more serious enforcement, when in reality, this

exacerbates backlogs in the courts from which the judges were transferred (Times

Editorial Board, 2017). This situation highlights deficiencies of manpower and an urgent

need for decision makers in immigration courts to hire immigration judges who can make

a difference in the advancement of courts operations.

New Zealand and the United Kingdom prepared white papers to plan a revolution

in governance, but the United States has worried less about preparing a master plan and

focused on solving problems as they arise (Kettl, 2015). Kettl (2002, 2015) discussed 11

principles for building new public service:

1. Hierarchy and authority cannot and will not be replaced, but they must be

fitted better to the transformation of governance.

2. Complex networks have been layered on top of hierarchical organizations and

they must be managed differently.

3. Public managers need to rely more on interpersonal and interorganizational

processes as complements to and sometimes as substitutes for authority.

4. Information is the most basic and necessary component for the transformation

of governance.

5. Performance management can provide a valuable tool for spanning fuzzy

boundaries.

6. Transparency is the foundation for trust and confidence in government

operations.

7. Government needs to invest in human capital so that the skills of its workers

match the jobs they must perform.

8. The transformation of governance requires new strategies and tactics for

popular participation in public administration.

9. Civic responsibility has become the job of government’s nongovernmental

partners.

10. Americans need to devise new constitutional strategies for the management of

conflict.

11. Governance in the United States and most other nations is a challenge of

boundary crossing. The interpenetration of government into all sectors of

society requires new strategies for accountability and performance as the

network of tools expands and popular trust appears to decline. Kettl outlined

five transformative strategies: (a) transform public law to ensure

accountability across the boundaries, (b) enable public agencies to be

instruments of leveraged action, (c) equip public servants to understand their

missions and use methods to span the partnerships that cross governmental

and private sector lines, (d) use information technology to bridge those

boundaries, and (e) apply performance management tools to make better

targeted decisions.

Research Application of Transformation of Governance Theory

Although no study was found where Kettl’s (2002, 2015) transformation of

governance theory was used as the theoretical foundation, scholars have used Kettl’s

theory to address different social problems (see Jones & Kettl, 2003; Roman, 2014;

Rosenbloom, 2013; Wachhaus, 2014; Wheeland, 2014). Wachhaus (2014) discussed the

effect of decentralization in today’s governance and the change in the relationships

between public, private, and nonprofit organizations. According to Wachhaus,

interpersonal and interorganizational relationships need to accommodate today’s realities

to promote effective collaboration between all parties involved. In addition, Wachhaus

pointed out that the traditional vertical relationships, from top to bottom, between

government agencies and outside organizations, do not suit current societal needs. The

emergence of collaboration and partnerships between public, private, and nonprofit

requires horizontal relationships, where all entities are at the same level. The researcher

echoed many elements relevant to organizational changes that Kettl mentioned in his

transformation of governance theory.

Wachhaus (2014) is not alone in addressing deficiencies in public administration

and management structure in the United States. Roman (2014) conducted a case study to

address efficiency in American bureaucracy. The purpose of the study was to determine

whether bureaucracy has any effect on administrative efficiency. Roman used the open

system theory, where he elaborated on how a system is a fruit of its environment. The

author also referred to the theory of transformation of governance to stress the need for

reforms within American bureaucracy. The transformation of governance theory applies

to all levels of government, whether federal, state, or municipal.

While some scholars focused their studies on transformation within federal

government, others based their research on states and cities that need to implement sound

reforms to optimize their management, operations, and service delivery. Wheeland

(2014) elaborated on different approaches that certain municipalities should use to create

good government. Wheeland noted that these approaches include implementation of a

model city charter that handles structural reform, and a city manager plan approach that

addresses how the unification of power in city council might bring positive change.

Wheeland argued that it is important for city managers to have some level of

professionalism so that they can constructively use their skills and knowledge while

serving the community.

Furthermore, public administration embodies some elements involving

management, politics, rules, and laws. Rosenbloom (2013) studied public administration

from a management, political, and legal standpoint. Rosenbloom determined how these

concepts shaped public administration organization and structure. The author also

examined the effect of administrative decisions and actions on subjected individuals.

Kettl’s transformation of governance theory was relevant in this study.

Public, private, and nonprofit organizations engage in partnerships to provide

services and goods to the public (Alexander & Nank, 2009). Alexander and Nank (2009)

noted that such partnerships require collaboration between the entities as well as change.

Mitchell (2014) conducted a qualitative exploratory study to assess the factors that push

transnational NGOs registered in the United States to collaborate with other agencies.

The researcher found that the leaders of interdependent transnational NGOs do not have

the same perceptions about collaboration as leaders of independent transnational NGOs.

Mitchell noted that interdependent transnational NGOs are more open to change than

independent transnational NGOs. Scholars have discussed the transformation of

governance theory and its relevance to the success of public administration. However,

some organizations are reluctant to change for various reasons and Mitchell’s article

highlighted this point.

However, the United States is not the only country that needs transformation in

public administration. Marra (2014) examined the techniques that the regional

government in Italy used to create and maintain coordination and collaboration with local

agencies that have economic issues and uncertainty. Marra found that interpersonal

relationships play a significant role in the promotion of coordination and efficiency in

public administration, which is in line with Kettl’s (2002, 2015) transformation of

governance theory. Similarly, Kettl (2015) discussed interpersonal relationship as one of

the contributing factors of coordination within public agencies.

Often, government and nongovernmental agencies engage in partnerships to

achieve a long-term goal. Unfortunately, sometimes the partnerships do not achieve the

targeted goal due to poor management and lack of coordination and knowledge (Holman,

2013). Holman (2013) explored the reasons why knowledge acquired during partnership

does not last long. Such a situation implies a need for change in the partnership

operations and Holman discussed Kettl’s (2002) transformation of governance theory to

emphasize this point.

American bureaucracy focuses on hierarchy and authority, and indicates that the

decision-making powers are centered at the top, where employees or subordinates barely

participate in the decision-making process (Hassan, Wright, & Paul, 2016). Hassan et al.

(2016) conducted a study to determine factors that public managers take into account

when empowering employees to participate in the decision-making process. In this

article, the researchers conducted a qualitative study to examine employees’

empowerment strategies in public management reforms. The concept of collaborative

governance played a relevant role in Morse and Stephens’ (2012) article. Morse and

Stephens argued that there exists different forms of collaborative governance and each

form has its related competencies. The authors also discussed how public administration

has been changing from a bureaucratic hierarchy and authoritarian system to a more

collaborative and networked system, which is similar to the premises in Kettl’s (2002,

2015) transformation of governance theory. Morse and Stephens discussed Kettl’s theory

to illustrate their argument pertaining to the need for transformation in public

administration.

Transformation of governance theory is significant to public administration. Jones

and Kettl (2003) took the theory to an international level when examining both global

public management reforms and the outcomes of the changes in both short- and long-

term instances. Jones and Kettl (2003) studied the implementation of transformation

models conducted in New Zealand and Australia, where leaders in both countries added

some structural reforms in their management system. The authors tackled the question of

how these public agencies incorporated the management model of the private sector to

generate efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery. Jones and Kettl pointed out the

roles and responsibilities of the government in these countries, and how these new roles

and responsibilities have affected the governments’ management in implementing sound,

effective reform.

Similarly, Kettl (2002) discussed similar principles in his article that addressed

the issue of transformation of governance with globalization, devolution, and the role of

government. Kettl noted that both globalization and devolution are changing the way

public agencies handle their operations; thus, today’s global leaders face many common

issues such as terrorism, economic instabilities, and immigration. Kettl’s transformation

of governance might not resolve all these issues, but it might help public leaders to take a

closer look at issues that public administrators face on a regular basis and build potential

solutions to the issues.

As society evolves, so do societal rules, needs, and governance (Kettl, 2015).

Kettl (2015) reported that many government agencies continue to have the same

structural problems despite making changes over the years. Kettl discussed how the

implementation of policies and rules may not be sufficient to bring about effective

change to get the job done. The author indicated that there is a need for government to

have new programs and increase the quality and quantity of services without increasing

cost. These needs discussed by Kettl are not being met throughout the current U.S.

immigration court system.

The EOIR has the power to oversee and monitor the operations of immigration

courts nationwide (DOJ, 2013). Questions still remain about whether decision makers

understand the sources of the problems in immigration courts and whether they are

implementing necessary changes to correct the issues and achieve common goals. The

perception and attitudes of immigration attorneys will help to answer this question.

Although the articles discussed in this section addressed different societal issues

pertaining to public administration, bureaucracy, and governance, they have some

common elements. For instance, there is agreement that public administration in the

United States need transformation and the use of Kettl’s (2002, 2015) transformation of

governance theory is helpful in the implementation of that change.

Literature Review

Scholars have explored immigration policy issues from different perspectives

because there are many factors that contribute to the deficiencies of the current

immigration system in the United States (e.g., Lewis, 2014; Rodriguez, 2013b; Webber,

2012). In addition, researchers have tried to understand the psychological effect of

deportation on undocumented immigrants and their loved ones (e.g., White, 2014). Wu

and D’Angelo (2014) reported that deficiencies in immigration policy might push certain

decision makers to incorporate criminal law to immigration rules for enforcement

purposes.

Removal proceedings cases can take years and the process involve several entities

that work and interact on a regular basis. The success of the process might require

coordination, effective communication, good organization, new technologies and a

reliable programming system. Cooper (2012) discussed the relevance of accountability in

public administration. Cooper explained that accountability involves oversight, checks

and balances, and thoughtfulness in the decision-making process. Cooper related that the

concepts of administration and governance aligns with the concepts of hierarchy and

authority; however, hierarchy and authority should accommodate societal needs and

realities in order to be efficient and useful for society.

Immigration courts around the country are overwhelmed with backlog cases

(DOJ, 2014). Research is lacking on flaws in immigration courts’ operations to include

hearings delays and the effects they have on undocumented immigrants and public

administrators. The perception and attitudes of immigration attorneys helped in

understanding the sources of delays in removal proceedings cases. Participants’

perceptions contained strategies that policymakers can use to bring a positive social

change. Unless positive changes occur throughout the immigration court system,

systemic failures and delays throughout the immigration courts could be further

detrimental to the entire court system.

In this section, I discuss research that is relevant to immigration policy issues and

removal proceeding problems. This section is organized in the following subsections:

complexity of immigration policy issues reform, immigration court structure and

background of removal proceedings, immigration case rulings, and recommendations to

reduce the delay crisis.

Complexity of Immigration Policy Reform

In this subsection, I address the complexity of immigration policy reform,

including the perceptions of scholars about immigration problems and public policy in

the United States. In this subsection, I also discuss the effect of deportation on

immigrants and their families, deficiencies in federal rules and regulations, and the

relationship between immigration law and criminal law. This subsection is organized in

the following areas: effect of deportation on immigrants and their families, deficiencies in

immigration rules and regulations, the relationship between immigration law and criminal

law, and immigration and public policy.

Effect of deportation on immigrants and their families. Current literature does

not adequately address the overwhelming backlog cases that immigration courts in the

United States need to resolve; however, the general perception is that delays in removal

proceeding hearings might affect all stakeholders such as the EOIR, judges, attorneys,

and immigrants (see Cervantes et al., 2010) . Cervantes et al. (2010) investigated the

effect of deportation on undocumented Latino families. The researchers studied how

serial migration can have a negative effect on the well-being of immigrants. Cervantes et

al. noted that many undocumented immigrants might not know the legal, financial, and

psychological ramifications of illegal immigration in the United States as many migrate

to the United States without proper documentation. The researchers reported that some

are deported by the ICE and many immigrants who faced deportation in court returned to

their countries voluntarily but reentered the United States illegally, such as in United

States v. Bentancourt (2001).

Thus, one of the realities that undocumented immigrants face once they enter the

United States is legalization of status or deportation (Cervantes et al., 2010). Cervantes et

al. (2010) explained that undocumented immigrants need proper documentation to move

around, work, seek an education, obtain a driver’s license, rent a home, and open a bank

account, which are basic societal living resources that U.S. residents enjoy on a daily

basis. The researchers related that undocumented immigrants are deprived of these

resources due to their illegal status, which affects them emotionally and psychologically.

Although Cervantes et al. discussed the effect of migration on Latino families, they did

not emphasize the hardship that undocumented immigrants go through when they face

deportation in removal proceeding hearings in immigration courts.

People migrate into the United States for many reasons, to include the pursuit of

happiness, economic stability, and political and religious asylum (White, 2014).

Cervantes et al. (2010) defined serial migration as a journey in which one family member

decides to migrate to a country and then assists other family members to do the same.

The researchers shared that serial migration is a cycle that never stops since it involves

multiple generations. Cervantes et al. discussed the psychological trauma that Latino

immigrants go through when they migrate. Cervantes et al. explored the challenges that

undocumented Latino immigrants such as Mexicans and migrants from Central America

encounter when they move to the United States. The researchers noted that some

individuals have a fallacy about migrating to the United States and do everything it takes

to cross the U.S. border.

The immigration issue is very complex and it does not affect immigrants only, but

local businesses who hire undocumented immigrants can be held accountable for such

acts (Cervantes et al., 2010). Cervantes et al. (2010) explained the role of mental

professionals, such as psychologists in determining the emotional effect of deportation on

the lives of individuals. The researchers noted that people who are involved in removal

proceedings in immigration courts can seek asylum or relief by providing reasons and

evidence that immigration judges might consider in deciding whether they stay in the

country or be removed. Cervantes et al. explained that the removal proceeding hearing

process can be burdensome for undocumented immigrants as it involves money,

collecting evidence, hiring immigration attorneys, and being in good standing with the

law. The researchers noted that one of the psychological effects that undocumented

immigrants face is the possibility of being separated from their children who were born in

the United States. The researchers explained that many undocumented immigrants have

children who were born in the United States, thus, the children are U.S. citizens.

Cervantes et al. further explained that in cases of deportation, the children would be

separated from their parents, which affects the parents and children emotionally, socially,

financially, and spiritually.

Deficiencies in immigration rules and regulations. Whereas Cervantes et al.

(2010) focused their study on serial migration, others scholars centered their research on

current immigration rules and policies (e.g., Rodriguez, 2013a, 2013b). Kerwin and

Furlong (2010) discussed public laws and policies aimed at resolving societal problems.

According to the authors, one way to tackle immigration problems is through the

implementation of sound public laws and policy. Kerwin and Furlong noted the roles and

responsibilities of both the federal and state governments in creating new immigration

rules. The authors emphasized challenges that state officials might face in formulating

new laws to solve immigration issues. Kerwin and Furlong related that because the

Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate foreigners’ naturalization, state laws

should not depart from federal regulations as federal rules preempt state laws.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate

the naturalization of foreigners. (Rodriguez, 2013a). Rodriguez (2013a) reported that

Congress has the ultimate authority to enact laws and policies in resolving immigration

problems. Rodriguez discussed the gravity of immigration issues in the United States and

lawmakers’ inability to find solutions. Rodriguez pointed out how the lack of

comprehensive reform push certain states such as Alabama, Arizona, and Texas to

intervene in the federal domain by creating laws that reduce illegal immigration and even

force individuals to leave the country without the intervention of authorities. Rodriguez

argued that certain states give law enforcement personnel the power to verify

documentation of suspected individuals while conducting their activities.

Some states have enacted controversial laws aimed at resolving current

immigration issues (Rodriguez, 2013a). Hidalgo (2014) discussed the strategy that certain

states used to implement changes to their immigration rules. Hidalgo argued that the

concept of self-determination that states rely on to make changes or restrictions to their

immigration policy should have a double standard where states apply restrictions to

immigration rules.

In addition, some laws make it a criminal offense for businesses to hire

undocumented immigrants (Rodriguez, 2013a). Rodriguez (2013a) noted that states’

involvement in the immigration area demonstrates the seriousness of immigration

problems and the urgency for Congress to do something about it. Moreover, the author

discussed the concept of good citizenship that some states might use as a strategy to

tackle illegal immigration. According to Rodriguez (2013a), good citizenship refers to

respect of public laws. It could be argued that this strategy specifically targets

undocumented immigrants since they violated the law by entering and staying in the

United States without proper documentation. Rodriguez did not discuss caseload issues in

immigration courts and policymakers’ need to address immigration policy.

Even if managing immigration seems to be a standard operating procedure for

public services, crises about immigration policies and administrative practices regularly

occur and challenge public sector organizations (Christensen & Lægreid, 2009;

Reichersdorfer, Christensen, & Vrangbaek, 2013). Reichersdorfer et al. (2013) analyzed

the degree of accountability of immigration administrators in Norway, Denmark, and

Germany. The researchers investigated different types of accountabilities including

political, administrative, legal, professional, and social in immigration decision making in

the three countries. Reichersdorfer et al. examined the concept of accountability as a

technique that pushes public servants to inform the public about their operations, for

example, the factors that administrators consider while making critical decisions.

Findings indicated that accountability dynamics emphasize conventional norms and

values regarding policy change and formal political responsibility does not always lead to

political consequences as consequences greatly depend on how accountability dynamics

take place. Although findings from Reichersdorfer et al. study may help policymakers to

better understand the urgency on immigration policy reforms in Norway, Denmark, and

Germany, further research in this area is needed in the United States.

Public administration theorists such as Kettl (2002, 2015) and Cooper (2002)

discussed the role of accountability in the efficiency of governance and public

administration. Immigration judges are public administrators who take administration

actions during removal proceedings. Reichersdorfer et al. (2013) did not focus on the

effect of judges’ accountability in immigration court policy reforms in the United States,

therefore, further research in this area would be beneficial.

The deportation hearing delay problems might have an effect on undocumented

immigrants whose cases have been rescheduled. For example, Coutin (2013) discussed

the magnitude of the deportation policy issue in the United States and its effect on

undocumented immigrants, particularly Salvadorans, who came into the United States

when they were children. Coutin reported that many children did not choose to come to

the United States and most of them were brought by their parents when they were little.

However, the researcher noted that this situation did not prevent them from being

deported by federal authorities, especially when they become adults. The issue with the

policy is that these individuals have spent more time in the United States than their

countries of origin. Therefore, they call the United States home and are accustomed to the

culture, lifestyle, language, and the overall structure of the nation, consequently, their

deportation can create serious hardship on them.

On June 15, 2012, President Obama created a new policy that called for deferred

action for certain undocumented young people who came to the United States as children

(Immigration Equality, 2015). Applications under the program called Deferred Action for

Childhood Arrivals (DACA) began on August 15, 2012 (Immigration Equality, 2015).

DACA provided administrative relief from deportation and the purpose is to protect

eligible immigrant youth who came to the United States when they were children from

deportation (University of California at Berkeley, 2017). Thus, DACA gives young

undocumented immigrants protection from deportation and a work permit (University of

California at Berkeley, 2017).

It is unclear whether the Trump administration will keep DACA and what they

will do with the information collected through the program (University of California at

Berkeley, 2017). Approximately 314,000 DACA recipients will lose their DACA

employment authorization document (EAD) in 2017, which is about 38% of all DACA

applicants (Bier, 2016, para. 17). Another 467,000 will lose authorization in 2018, about

115,000 of those will happen in the first quarter of 2018, meaning, that DACA will be

half over by March 2018 (Bier, 2016, para. 17) if Congress does not take any action.

Gender plays a role in the criminalization of undocumented immigrants (Gupta,

2013). Gupta (2013) discussed the effect of deportation on undocumented immigrants

and their loved ones. Gupta investigated how gender affects the criminalization and

deportation of undocumented immigrants. Gupta analyzed Internet archive of 29

narratives from members representing 15 nationalities and interviews conducted in 2009

and 2010 with members of Families for Freedom (FFF) and the New York chapter of the

New Sanctuary Movement. The author pointed out some of the challenges that

undocumented male immigrants go through when they face deportation. Future research

could further focus on whether gender plays a role in immigration courts’ decision in

delaying removal proceeding cases.

Many female immigrants are victims of domestic violence and to address this

issue, Congress enacted the 2005 Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act

(VAWA; Conyers, 2007). Conyers (2007) discussed the reasons Congress built a strategy

in response to the violence that certain immigrants face on a daily basis. In addition, the

author noted how the VAWA is used to protect women. Conyers related that many

immigrants come from a culture where domestic violence is not considered a crime. The

author noted that some women rely on their husband’s support, which makes it very

difficult for them to report any abuses. In addition, the author shared that many

undocumented women battle deportation in court and in some cases their partners cannot

help them when the issues get complicated. Thus, Conyers discussed domestic violence

as one issue that some undocumented female immigrants face.

The DHS and the DOJ allows certain nonprofit organizations to represent

undocumented immigrants before immigration officers and judges (DOJ, 2015).

Humphries (2006) examined strategies that certain nonprofit organization use to help

undocumented immigrations with their cases. The author discussed the immigration

system in the United States and noted that immigrants experience various issues when

they arrive in the United States. Humphries noted that many organizations and social

workers work with undocumented immigrants to resolve some of the issues by providing

services and goods. In addition, the author used the transnationalism theory to describe

the transitional style of immigrants based on how they lived in their native country and

then in the United States. Therefore, Humphries focused on the cultural aspect of

immigration problems instead of deportation and its related issues.

Some organizations employ fraudulent techniques to take advantage of

undocumented immigrants (Longazel & Fleury-Steiner, 2013). Longazel and Fleury-

Steinero (2013) examined the recent response in the United States to notario fraud, which

is an unlawful act that is committed when a nonlawyer poses as an immigration attorney.

The researchers discussed the high number of immigrants arriving in the United States

and the demand for legal services far exceeding supply. Longazel and Fleury-Steinero

explained that due to an increasingly complex system of immigration law, high attorney

fees, and the unprecedented potential for immigrant punishment, deportation, and

victimization, nonaccredited individuals offering legal services to immigrants are in high

demand. The researchers noted that defrauding immigrants is a low-risk endeavor as

immigrants vulnerable to deportation are less likely to pursue criminal charges. In

addition, the researchers related that cultural ambiguity confounds matters even further

because in Latin America, the word notario is commonly used to describe a group of

highly specialized, elite attorneys who, much like licensed attorneys in the United States,

are subject to rigorous examinations, regulations, and professional standards. Some

researchers have claimed that the scope of this problem is wide (e.g., Cisneros, 2001;

Langford, 2004; Moore, 2004). Longazel and Fleury-Steinero noted that some disturbing

cases have been publicized, many of which involve clients being deceived, losing large

sums of money, and having their quest for citizenship jeopardized. Due to this, the

researchers noted that there has been a significant governmental response, which led to

the formation of an expansive public and private antinotario fraud apparatus.

The relationship between immigration law and criminal law. Certain

immigrants who battle deportation in courts are lawful permanent residents (Stellin,

2016). Stellin (2016) noted that they can lose their permanent resident status if they

commit a felony offence under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). Stellin

discussed the case of a man who was brought to the United States as a baby from

Northern Ireland. The author noted that he was a permanent U.S. resident, with three

young sons who were U.S. citizens. Stellin related that the man got into a bar fight, which

happened 11 years before immigration agents showed up at his home. The author noted

that he was deported back to Northern Ireland because he plead guilty to an assault

charge 11 years prior, but did not understand the consequences, and now was exiled from

his loved ones. Thus, being a permanent resident does not prevent immigrants from being

deported, especially when the person is accused of an immoral crime (Newstead &

Frisso, 2013). Researchers have also explored the federal sentencing process to see if

there was a difference in sentencing between citizens and noncitizens; however, they did

not discuss whether deportation was part of harsher penalties for noncitizens (Newstead

& Frisso, 2013; Wu & D’Angelo, 2014).

Immigration and public policy. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attack (9/11)

had a significant effect on the immigration policy in the United States (Hammon, 2001).

Hammon (2001) analyzed the relationship between the war on terrorism and the war

against illegal immigration. The author noted that both illegal immigration and terrorism

remain serious societal problems in United States, which divides politicians across the

country. Hammon reported that the INA grants ICE officials the ability to deport

immigrants who pose a threat to the United States. The author noted that individuals who

remain in ICE’s custody must appear before immigration courts to respond to charges

such as illegal entry, terrorism, and other security issues. The author explained that the

federal government spent a significant amount of money to detain immigrants in prison

before their hearings. Thus, critical delays in removal proceeding hearings can negatively

affect the ICE budget, however, Hammon (2001) did not discuss this factor.

The actions of terrorist who carried out 9/11 pushed the legislative and executive

branches to review immigration regulations, identify flaws, and take corrective measures

(Pope & Garrett, 2012). Pope and Garrett (2012) explored strategies lawmakers used to

implement new immigration policies after 9/11. According to the authors, decision

makers based their immigration policy reform on two elements. The first factor was the

concept of state of emergency, which pertained to the need for urgent change by either

nullifying previous laws or adding new regulations aimed at filling the gaps in the

system. In addition, the authors also discussed a second factor related to the challenges,

pain, and sufferings that undocumented immigrants faced on a daily basis due to their

illegal status. The authors called the second factor homo sacer, which pertained to

undocumented immigrants who fell under a certain societal class, where they do not

enjoy basic fundamental rights. Pope and Garrett used the homo sacer theory and the

state of exception theory when discussing the overall structure of immigration law and

border control. Pope and Garrett focused on the relationship between 9/11 and the actions

of decision makers in reforming immigration rules with the goal of protecting the

American people. The authors discussed circumstances in which lawmakers apply

exceptions to the rule to tackle critical societal matters. However, Pope and Garrett did

not discuss the caseload crisis that immigration court officials face as part of immigration

reform.

Immigration Court Structure and Background of Removal Proceedings

Figure 1 depicts the U.S. immigration court structure, Figure 2 show the

immigration court operational structure, Figure 3 denotes the hearing process

immigration courts must follow, and Figure 4 shows the options and reliefs available for

undocumented immigrants and their attorneys. These figures are helpful when discussing

the immigration court structure and background of removal proceedings.

Figure 1. A brief overview of the U.S. immigration court structure.

Figure 2. The immigration court operational structure.

Figure 3. The hearing process immigration courts must follow.

Figure 4. The options and reliefs available for undocumented immigrants and their

attorneys. BIA = Board of Immigration Appeals.

Immigration judges across the United States are struggling with resolving the

removal proceeding cases in a timely manner due to the significant backlog of court cases

(Sol, 2016). Thus, Sol (2016) related that many undocumented immigrants’ cases have

been critically delayed. Cannato (2012) reported that both the legislative and executive

branches of government have offered different solutions for immigration policy reforms.

Cannato noted that the issue is that democrats and republicans do not have the same

strategies to tackle the immigration problem. A division between policymakers make it

difficult for the implementation of effective and efficient immigration regulations.

Scholars have studied various issues related to immigration and deportation (e.g., Das,

2008; Garcia, 2012). However, research is lacking on the delay crisis that immigration

courts have been facing.

Many undocumented immigrants are not satisfied with the court ruling regarding

their deportation orders (Davis v. U.S, 2007; U.S. v. El Shami, 2005). Under 8 C.F.R. §§

1240.1(a), 1240.31, 1240.41, U.S. judges have the power in immigration courts to decide

whether undocumented immigrants who face deportation need to be removed, deported,

or excluded from the United States (DOJ, 2016). In addition, immigration courts have the

power to examine reliefs and remedies that individuals might be entitled to under the INA

(DOJ, 2016). Immigration courts have a lot of discretion on cases that they adjudicate;

however, immigration judges do not have authority over certain immigration-related

matters (DOJ, 2016). Federal rules 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2, 1003.42(h), 28 C.F.R. § 68.26

reserve certain authorities to the USCIS, which is a different entity from the immigration

courts and the DOJ (DOJ, 2016). The USCIS handles visa petitions or relative petitions,

work authorization for immigrants, naturalization processes, advance parole, and

affirmative asylum (Kandel, 2015). The rulings of immigration courts are not final as

they are subjected to appeals to the BIA (Kandel, 2015). The decisions of BIA can also

be appealed in federal courts that handle such reviews (DOJ, 2016).

Moreover, immigration proceedings have changed over the years (DOJ, 2016).

According to the DOJ (2016), immigration courts previously handled deportation and

exclusion proceedings; however, based on the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant

Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) enacted in 1996, deportation and exclusion proceedings

have been modified. The IIRIRA incorporated the removal proceedings, which became

effective in 1997 (DOJ, 2016). Federal Regulations 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.12-1003.41,

1240.26 covers the removal proceedings process (DOJ, 2016).

The removal proceedings hearing is initiated by the DHS (DOJ, 2016). When

undocumented immigrants fall under deportation, the DHS notifies them by filing Form

I-862, Notice to Appear (NTA), in immigration court under federal rule 8 C.F.R. §§

1003.13, 1003.14 (DOJ, 2016). They are informed of their rights and responsibilities,

such as their right to retain counsel (DOJ, 2016). However, in certain cases, the DHS

might send the NTA to the undocumented immigrant without filing the notice in court

(DOJ, 2016). In such a situation, the immigrant who is called a respondent bears no legal

duty to appear before the immigration court in case of failure to prosecute (DOJ, 2016).

The parties involved in removal proceedings include the undocumented immigrant and

the DHS (DOJ, 2016). The DOJ (2016) shared that the respondent has the option to have

representation or counsel and the DHS is represented by the assistant chief counsel or

government attorney. The respondent’s representative has to have authorization or

certification under 8 C.F.R. 1292 (DOJ, 2016). The primary role of the respondent’s

counsel is to handle filings on behalf of the respondent and interact with the immigration

court and government attorney by exchanging relevant information (DOJ, 2016). In doing

so, the respondent’s counsel is required to file a notice of entry of appearance before the

immigration court, Form EOIR-28 (DOJ, 2016).

Deportation is a complicated procedure and sometimes respondents and

representatives might not agree on how to handle cases (DOJ, 2016). In case of

disagreement, the respondent’s counsel has the right to withdraw from the case by

submitting a verbal or written request and the respondent has the right to retain a new

representative; however, the new counsel who takes on the case has to file a notice of

entry of appearance in court (DOJ, 2016). It is important that the NTA, Form I-862,

indicates the date, time, and the location of the hearing (DOJ, 2016). According to the

DOJ (2016), before the hearing, the respondent’s counsel may ask the court to conduct

the hearing by video conference or teleconference depending on the circumstances under

the INA § 240(b)(2), 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(c). However, the immigration judge has the

discretion to request that the respondent appear in person. Moreover, the respondent and

counsel has a legal duty to attend the hearing at the right date, time, and location (DOJ,

2016). The court has the authority to hold the hearing in absentia if the respondent is late

or fails to appear in court according to 8.C.F.R. 1003.26, which applies to both the master

calendar hearing and individual calendar hearing (DOJ, 2016).

Thus, there are two types of hearings in removal proceedings: master calendar

hearing and individual calendar hearing (DOJ, 2016). The master hearing is the first

appearance of the respondent in court where the court verifies the personal information of

the respondent; including the name, address, and alien registration number (DOJ, 2016).

The court also provides the respondent with rights and responsibilities, including reliefs

and remedies that the person might have under federal rules (DOJ, 2016). On the other

hand, the individual hearing is similar to a trial in regular court (DOJ, 2016). During the

individual hearing, the two parties present oral arguments and produce evidence to

support those arguments, call witnesses if applicable, and make objections (DOJ, 2016).

In addition, the general public can have access to deportation hearings unless the court

decides otherwise; for example, an immigration court may decide to hold a closed

hearing in cases that involve children, asylum, spousal abuse, or other sensitive matters

such as torture (DOJ, 2016). Besides the court, the counsel of the respondent can request

a closed hearing by filing a motion in court (DOJ, 2016). Many immigrants come from

countries where English is not the official language; therefore, they can request an

interpreter and the court will pay the cost (DOJ, 2016). Removal proceeding hearings are

recorded only by court officials as no other entity is allowed to record hearings (DOJ,

2016). This allows the courts to have electronic records of removal proceedings cases and

the appellate court might request transcripts in case of appeals (DOJ, 2016).

Immigration case backlogs has been an ongoing problem for immigration courts

across the United States and the EOIR has been aware of the issue (GAO, 2006). The

GAO (2006) conducted a performance review of the EOIR and immigration courts to

investigate the overall operations of immigration courts in the United States. The GAO

interviewed EOIR officials to examine the caseload and delays in court operations.

Findings indicated major issues within immigration courts’ coordination, organization,

and proceedings. Some of the issues that were discovered included data entry problems,

system programming failures, and other procedural errors. The GAO also found some

irregularities in the EOIR’s quarterly statement. In addition, EOIR officials were behind

in removal proceeding schedule. EOIR officials indicated that they recognized the issues

and would take appropriate measures to correct the problems, such as setting up quarterly

goals to resolve and close old cases.

With approximately 330 judges nationwide, immigration courts in the United

Sates are struggling to resolve 610,524 removal proceedings cases (DOJ, 2017a, 2017b,

p. 1; TRAC, 2017, p.1). There are different wait times based on the location of the

immigration court, with some courts focusing exclusively on priority cases such as

unaccompanied minors, women with children, and people who are detained (TRAC,

2015a, 2015b). Thus, for some undocumented immigrants, wait times are much shorter,

whereas wait time can be much longer in some locations where the court is understaffed

with not enough immigration judges based on their caseload (TRAC, 2015a).

Immigration Case Rulings

The following cases shed more light on the need for a comprehensive immigration

reform and transformation in immigration courts’ operations. The cases indicate the

effect of immigration policy issues on all stakeholders, such as the challenges that

undocumented immigrants, immigration courts officials such as judges, DHS officials,

and immigration attorneys encounter during the removal proceedings process. Due to

federal rules, immigration judges have a lot of power and discretion over deportation

hearings (DOJ, 2008). For example, an undocumented immigrant’s attorney can file

written motions in court and the immigration judge has discretions over those motions,

which may include motion to waive representative’s appearance, motion to waive the

respondent’s appearance, and motion to present telephonic testimony (DOJ, 2008).

A case that illustrates the complexities in immigration courts is the United States

of America v. Wilbert Turner (2010). Based on the United States of America v. Wilbert

Turner court case, Turner was a Jamaican citizen who became a permanent resident of

the United States in 1984, and was convicted in 1986 for illegal possession of marijuana.

As a result, he faced deportation and in 1991, Turner was deported from the United States

to Jamaica after a long process. A year later, Turner reentered the United States illegally

and was arrested and faced deportation for the second time under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

Turner was deported 5 times by the government, but reentered the United States illegally.

Turner challenged the deportation order by claiming that the immigration court failed to

inform him about his first deportation hearing, which he did not attend. Turner argued

that he never received the deportation hearing notice and he would have been able to seek

remedies had been aware of the hearing. Turner filed a motion to dismiss his case for

procedural error; however, the immigration judge denied his motion and requested an

evidentiary hearing.

United States of America v. Armando Cazarez-Santos (2014) was another

immigration case that highlights the need for reform in court proceedings. In U.S. v.

Cazarez-Santos, the petitioner, Cazarez-Santos, was convicted of aggravated felony for

illegally aiding and transporting undocumented immigrants into the United States. As a

result, he was deported by the federal government after serving a prison term. Cazarez-

Santos then tried to reenter the United States illegally, but ICE arrested him and placed

him on the list for deportation. Cazarez-Santos challenged his deportation decision for

ineffective counsel and representation. Cazarez-Santos argued that his counsel failed to

inform him about the likelihood of deportation after being convicted of an aggravated

felony offence. The court held that Casarez-Santos was aware of the consequences of the

crime he committed and removal proceedings remained one of those consequences.

Therefore, he had no standing by claiming such a defense as his counsel acted within

legal procedures. According to the immigration judge, the defense counsel did what a

reasonable person would do under the same circumstances, therefore, the court denied his

motion to dismiss.

In U.S. v. Betancourt (2001), the defendant, Betancourt, a Mexican citizen, was a

permanent resident who was arrested and convicted of aggravated assault, false

imprisonment, and battery under the criminal code of the State of Florida. Consequently,

he faced deportation and the immigration court notified him about the removal

proceedings hearing, which he failed to attend. ICE deported Betancourt, but he reentered

the United States without proper documentation. Betancourt was charged with illegal

reentry under U.S.C §1326. Betancourt claimed that his deportation conviction violated

his constitutional right of due process; thus, he asked the court to dismiss his case. In

addition, Betancourt argued that the court did not inform him of the rights and remedies

that he had under the immigration regulations, such as 8 U.S.C.S. § 212(c), which

provides some reliefs or remedies to certain undocumented immigrants who battle

deportation in court under specific conditions and circumstances. The court concurred

with Betancourt by stating that the deportation order was prejudicial as the defendant did

not get the opportunity to dispute the charges brought against him.

In another immigration case, United States of America v. Mario Arita-Campos

(2009), Arita-Campos was a Honduras citizen who was living illegally in the United

States. ICE ordered his deportation and the court scheduled a deportation hearing. Arita-

Campos stayed in the United States while waiting on his removal proceedings hearing;

however, he did not show up on the hearing date and the judge ordered his removal in

absentia since he was not present. Arita-Campos filed a motion to dismiss by arguing that

the judge in absentia removal order was prejudicial and unfair. The court held that Arita-

Campos lacked standing as he was unable to prove that the court’s order was

fundamentally unfair under §1326(d) of the INA. According to the USCIS (2017), the

INA allows undocumented immigrants to challenge the validity of the deportation order

provided that challenge meets the following criteria: (a) The subjected individual must

use all the legal reliefs or remedies that the person is entitled under INA, (b) the removal

proceedings procedure is considered invalid for procedural failure, and (c) the deportation

order itself is prejudicial and unfair. United States of America v. Mario Arita-Campos

indicated that the immigration judge denied Arita-Campos motion to dismiss because the

motion did not meet the three criteria.

In the United States of America v. Jose De La Luz Felix-Maciel (2011) court case,

the defendant, Felix-Maciel, filed a motion to dismiss his deportation decision and

claimed the immigration court committed a procedural error. The defendant was charged

with entering the United States illegally and the defendant argued that the court’s ruling

violated his constitutional right of due process as the judge failed to inform him about his

right to appeal during his prior deportation proceeding. However, the appeals court did

not agree with that argument and noted that defendant failed to mention the procedural

error in a timely manner as it was 25 years after the original ruling. In addition, the

defendant was deported 3 times from the United States, but reentered the United States

illegally. The appeals court even went further by stating that the defendant could have

notified the government when he was arrested and faced removal proceeding hearing in

court.

In the Andre Paul Davis v. United States (2007) case, the petitioner committed a

felony offence. As a result, he faced deportation; however, the court changed the hearing

date and neither the petitioner or his attorney was present at the hearing. The court ruled

in absentia and ordered the petitioner’s removal from the United States. The petitioner

claimed that he never received the hearing notice and that he notified his attorney when

he moved to a new address, but his attorney failed to inform the court. Therefore, the

petitioner stated a defense of ineffective counsel; thus, the circuit court placed a hold on

the petitioner’s motion to vacate while waiting for the final ruling on his removal

proceedings.

In the United States of America v. Essam Helmi Elshamie (2005), the defendant

claimed collateral attack regarding his removal proceedings decision and stated that the

court failed to notify him about the hearing. The defendant was charged with illegal

reentry. The court held the hearing in absentia and ordered the removal of the defendant.

Under immigration rules, individuals who are ordered to be removed from the United

States have 30 days to file an appeal of the deportation decision before the BIA, but the

defendant did not file the appeal in a timely manner. The defendant argued that he was

never aware of the hearing, therefore, he was unable to seek relief. The court concurred

with the defendant and held that the failure of the USCIS to inform the defendant about

the hearing prevented him to request remedies that he might have been entitled to under

federal regulations.

Similarly, in the United States of America v. Buenaventura Castillo Basa (2007),

Basa was convicted of illegal entry in the United States after being deported and stated

that he was not informed about the deportation hearing. The defendant also claimed that

the government could not hold another hearing just to disprove his argument under the

double jeopardy clause. The appellate court agreed with the defendant on the double

jeopardy clause.

In the United States of America v. Antonio Melendez-Castro (2012), the defendant

filed a motion to dismiss his conviction and argued that the immigration judge gave him

erroneous advice regarding the possibility of getting voluntary departure during his 1997

deportation hearing. The issues before the court were whether the defendant had the right

to seek voluntary departure and whether the immigration judge failed to inform him

during the hearing. The defendant claimed collateral attack during his first deportation

hearing and after reviewing all the evidence, the court denied the defendant’s motion to

dismiss because there was no prejudice by the judge.

Recommendations to Reduce the Delay Crisis

Problems affecting the immigration removal process requires further attention.

The perceptions and attitudes of immigration attorneys about delays in removal

proceeding hearings in an immigration court in Texas is instrumental in addressing the

case backlog crisis because they are an important stakeholder in the immigration process.

In this subsection, I will discuss some of the recommendations found in the literature

pertaining to the backlog crisis.

Due to the depth and breadth of the problem, Reasoner (2011) provided

regulatory or policy amendment recommendations. Reasoner noted that statutory change

was undesirable because such changes were unlikely based on the political climate.

Reasoner recommended the following: (a) restrict the use of voluntary return, (b)

encourage the use of judicial orders of removal, (c) expand the use of regular expedited

removal proceedings, (d) require the use of administrative expedited removal proceedings

against aggravated felons, (e) resuscitate the use of stipulated orders of removal, and (f)

strengthen sanctions against frivolous filings and representation abuse.

There are two reasons for restricting the use of voluntary return (Reasoner, 2011).

First, Reasoner (2011) suggested that no immigrant convicted of a crime should be

granted the privilege of voluntary return as it undermines the DHS and ICE priorities of

focusing immigration enforcement efforts on immigrants who are criminals. Second,

Reasoner noted that voluntary return encourages immigrants who have recidivated to

illegally return to the United States without much fear of consequences because it takes

away the possibility of criminal prosecution for reentry after removal. Reasoner

explained that in 2010, DHS officers apprehended 516,992 immigrants for immigration

violations and 476,405 (92%) were permitted to voluntarily return to their home country

instead of proceedings (p. 12). Reasoner noted that most of these immigrants (463,382 or

89.6% of the total apprehensions) were taken into custody by border patrol agents in

proximity to the United States physical frontiers and most could have been formally

removed by use of expedited removal (p. 12).

In regard to encouraging the use of judicial orders of removal, Reasoner (2011)

explained that when the EOIR is so overburdened, other parts of the DOJ should help in

alleviating that burden. Reasoner argued that the DOJ’s Executive Office of U.S.

Attorneys should revise the United States attorneys’ manual so that prosecutors can seek

judicial orders of removal from federal judges in all criminal cases in which the

defendant is an alien. Reasoner noted that if the alien’s presence is required as a witness

or defendant in future trials, the order of removal can be accompanied by a directive to

stay the removal until conclusion of all criminal proceedings.

In relation to expanding the use of regular expedited removal proceedings,

Reasoner (2011) argued that through the use of the regulatory rulemaking process, the

ICE should expand the cases in which nonjudicial expedited removal may be used against

immigrants illegally in the United States. Reasoner emphasized that this recommendation

should not deprive officers of their ability to use alternate due process procedures, but is

intended only to ensure that lesser alien offenders are not given the opportunity to depart

voluntarily without tying up finite court resources and detention space while trying to

obtain a formal order of removal.

In regard to requiring the use of administrative expedited removal proceedings

against aggravated felons, Reasoner (2011) noted that a lot of officer and judicial time is

spent in the litigation of cases against immigrants convicted of, and serving time for,

aggravated felonies. Thus, Reasoner recommended that the ICE director issue a policy

directive that requires the use of nonjudicial administrative final orders in all cases

involving aggravated felons who are not lawful permanent resident aliens. In relation to

resuscitating the use of stipulated orders of removal, Reasoner argued that there appears

to be adequate room to establish sufficient due process to satisfy appellate judges, if not

the private bar, that immigrants who sign stipulations have done so knowingly and of

their own volition; thus, the Office of the Professional Legal Advisor should develop

operating procedures to guide its attorneys and ICE staff in their appropriate use. In

regard to strengthening sanctions against frivolous filings and representation abuse,

Reasoner recommended that the EOIR should immediately complete regulatory

amendments to disbar, sanction, and penalize fraud, contumelious behavior, or dilatory

tactics on the part of attorney practitioners who abuse immigration proceedings at trial or

at the appellate level.

The EOIR case backlog, which pertains to cases pending from previous years that

remain open at the start of a new fiscal year, more than doubled from 2006 through 2015,

and is attributed to declining cases completed each year (GAO, 2017). The GAO (2017)

discussed actions that are needed to reduce case backlog and address long-standing

management and operational challenges. To better address current and future staffing

needs, the GAO recommended that the EOIR director develop and implement a strategic

workforce plan that addresses key principles of effective strategic workforce planning,

which should include (a) determining critical skills and competencies needed to achieve

current and future programmatic results; (b) developing strategies that are tailored to

address gaps in number, deployment, and alignment of human capital approaches for

enabling and sustaining the contributions of all critical skills and competencies; and (c)

monitoring and evaluating the agency’s progress toward its human capital goals and the

contribution that human capital results have made toward achieving programmatic

results.

To better address the EOIR’s immigration judge staffing needs, the GAO (2017)

recommended that the EOIR director (a) assess the immigration judge hiring process to

identify opportunities for efficiency, (b) use the assessment results to develop a hiring

strategy that targets short- and long-term human capital need, and (c) implement any

corrective actions related to the hiring process resulting from this assessment. To help

ensure that the EOIR meets its cost and schedule expectations for EOIR courts and

appeals systems (ECAS), the GAO recommended that the EOIR director (a) identify and

establish the appropriate entity for exercising oversight over ECAS through full

implementation, and (b) document and implement an oversight plan that is consistent

with best practices for overseeing information technology (IT) projects, including

establishing how the oversight body is to monitor program performance and progress

toward expected cost, schedule, and benefits; ensuring that corrective actions are

identified and assigned to the appropriate parties at the first sign of cost, schedule, or

performance slippages; and ensuring that corrective actions are tracked until the desired

outcomes are achieved.

To provide further assurance that EOIR’s use of video teleconference (VTC) in

immigration hearings is outcome-neutral, the GAO (2017) recommended that the EOIR

director (a) collect more complete and reliable data on the number and type of hearings it

conducts through VTC, (b) collect data on appeals in which the use of VTC formed some

basis for the appeal and the number of in-person hearing motions filed, and (c)

use these and other data to assess any effects of VTC on immigration hearings and

address any issues identified through such an assessment. To further ensure that the

EOIR’s VTC hearings meet all user needs and help the EOIR in identifying and

addressing technical issues with VTC hearings, the GAO recommended that the EOIR

director develop and implement a mechanism to solicit and monitor feedback from

respondents regarding their satisfaction and experiences with VTC hearings, including

the audio and visual quality of the hearing. To better assess court performance and use

data to identify potential management challenges, GAO recommended that the EOIR take

the following actions: (a) establish and monitor comprehensive case completion goals,

including a goal for completing nondetained cases not currently captured by performance

measures, and goals for cases it considers a priority; (b) systematically analyze

immigration court continuance data to identify and address any operational challenges

faced by courts or areas for additional guidance or training; and (c) update policies and

procedures to ensure the timely and accurate recording of NTA.

Summary and Conclusions

The DHS initiates hundreds of thousands of cases with the U.S. immigration court

system each year to decide whether immigrants who are foreign nationals charged on

statutory grounds of inadmissibility or deportability should be removed from the United

States or granted any requested relief or protection from removal and permitted to

lawfully remain in the country (GAO, 2017). The EOIR’s responsibilities include

conducting immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative

hearings fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly administer and interpret U.S. immigration

laws and regulations (GAO, 2017). Congress, immigration court experts, and

stakeholders such as immigration attorneys and their clients are concerned about the

growing case backlog, which are the number of cases pending at the start of each fiscal

year before the immigration courts (GAO, 2017). In addition, the EOIR’s director

testified that the EOIR’s growing pending caseload is its largest challenge where the

number of pending cases before its immigration courts grew by 58% from fiscal years

2012 through 2016 to a backlog of more than 500,000 cases pending at the start of fiscal

year 2017 (GAO, 2017, p. 2). TRAC (2017) reported that the overall number of pending

cases in the United States for 2016 was 496,704 and 610,524 in 2017, thus, a 22.9%

increase (p. 1). The State of Texas had the second highest pending cases, with 87,088

pending cases in 2016 and 100,510 pending cases in 2017; thus, a 15.4% increase

(TRAC, 2017, p.1). As a result, some immigrant cases may take years to resolve (GAO,

2017).

EOIR officials have identified multiple factors, such as increases in immigration

court caseloads, legal complexity, and resource shortages as contributing to case backlogs

(GAO, 2017). However, immigration court experts and stakeholders have noted

additional challenges such as the immigration court system’s structure as adversely

affecting the courts’ efficiency and effectiveness (GAO, 2017). To address these

challenges, various organizations, such as the American Bar Association and the National

Association for Immigration Judges have recommended management improvements;

incremental reform of the immigration courts within the existing EOIR structure, and

major structural changes, such as creating an immigration court system independent of

any executive branch department or agency as restructuring could result in various

benefits, such as enhanced credibility and organizational capacity (GAO, 2017).

However, additional research is needed to better understand the removal proceeding

hearing case backlog in order to find other possible solutions to the delay crisis.

Therefore, this study addressed this gap by adding to the literature in exploring

immigration attorneys’ perceptions and attitudes about delays in removal proceeding

hearings in an immigration court in Texas. Immigration attorneys are important

stakeholders who have expertise in the removal proceeding hearing process and the

immigration court system.

In Chapter 2, I included the introduction, literature search strategy, theoretical

foundation, complexity of immigration policy issues reform, immigration court structure

and background of removal proceedings, immigration case rulings, recommendations to

reduce the delay crisis, and a summary and conclusions. In Chapter 3, I include the

research design and rationale, role of the researcher, methodology, issues of

trustworthiness, and a summary. In Chapter 4, I include the setting, demographics, data

collection, data analysis, evidence of trustworthiness, results, and a summary. In Chapter

5, I include the interpretation of the findings, limitations of the study, recommendations,

implications, and a conclusion.

Chapter 3: Research Method

In this case study, I explored the perceptions and attitudes of immigration

attorneys about delays in removal proceeding hearings in an immigration court in Texas

with one of the highest numbers of pending cases. Using snowball sampling, data were

collected for this study through in-depth face-to-face semistructured interviews with 10

immigration attorneys as well as deportation hearing observations and court document

reviews. I transcribed the interviews, deportation hearing observations, and court

document reviews and managed the data with NVivo. Data were analyzed using the open

coding technique. I conducted the study in accordance with Walden University’s IRB

guidelines to ensure the ethical protection of research participants. The IRB approved the

application for the study and the approval number is 11-08-16-0414347. In Chapter 3, I

include the research design and rationale, role of the researcher, methodology, issues of

trustworthiness, and a summary.

Research Design and Rationale

In this section, I present the research questions for this case study. I also discuss

the case study design rationale. I organized this section in the following subsections:

research questions and case study research design rationale.

Research Questions

In this qualitative case study, I addressed one central research question: What are

the perceptions and attitudes of immigration attorneys about delays in removal

proceeding hearings in an immigration court in Texas?

Three subquestions were considered:

1. How do immigration attorneys perceive the effects of delays on the welfare of

immigrant clients?

2. How do immigration attorneys perceive the effects of delays on client-

attorney relationships?

3. What are the perceptions of immigration attorneys about potential solutions to

the delay crisis?

Case Study Research Design Rationale

I used a qualitative case study research design to explore the perceptions and

attitudes of immigration attorneys about delays in removal proceeding hearings in an

immigration court in Texas. Snowball sampling was used to collect data through in-depth

face-to-face semistructured interviews with 10 immigration attorneys in a specific city in

Texas. In addition, I conducted deportation hearing observations and reviewed court

documents. I used NVivo to manage the data and the open coding technique for analysis.

I considered a mixed method approach because it uses the strengths of both the

qualitative and quantitative methodologies to provide a broader perspective on the overall

issue (see Moss, 2017). However, a mixed methods approach was not needed in

answering the central research question and three subquestions in this study. I also

considered a quantitative research method because it allows the researcher to remain

more objective while proving or disproving a hypothesis (see Sewell, 2017). However, a

quantitative method was not used for this research study because participants’

perceptions or thoughts cannot be measured with standardized instruments. Thus, I used a

qualitative research method in this study because data collection is based on participants’

meanings and the researcher is able to become immersed in the research topic (see

Sewell, 2017).

I considered five qualitative research designs for this study, which include case

study, ethnography, grounded theory, narrative inquiry, and phenomenology (see

Guetterman, 2015). I chose the case study research design after an in-depth review of the

five qualitative designs. A case study research design allows researchers to conduct a

deeper exploration of a phenomenon (Patton, 2002). The focus of the case study in this

qualitative inquiry was to examine a societal problem within a bounded judicial system.

There are two types of immigrants who battle deportation in court. The first category of

immigrants are in ICE custody and are considered detainees. The second category of

immigrants are not in ICE custody, but they remain in the United States as they wait for

their removal proceeding hearings. In this study, I focused on the backlog cases of

immigrants who are not detained by ICE. The immigration court in the State of Texas,

which was the focus of this study, had 39,968 pending cases in 2016 and 48,701 pending

cases in 2017, thus, a 21.8% increase (TRAC, 2017, p.1). The immigration court and the

service processing center that were the focus of this study have 11 immigration judges

(DOJ, 2017a). The State of Texas have 9 immigration courts and 45 immigration judges

(DOJ, 2017a).

Maxwell (2013) and Patton (2002) related that the case study research design

allows qualitative researchers to investigate a real, complex societal situation. The aim of

this case study was to analyze the problem of deportation hearing delays from different

angles using immigration attorney interviews, deportation hearing observations, and court

document reviews. Thus, the case study design was used to understand this complex

situation. Case study design varies depending on the research question and purpose

(Patton, 2002). For example, a single case study may not be appropriate when the focus is

on describing different individuals’ perspectives about different social situations (Patton,

2002). However, the aim of this study was to understand delays regarding deportation

hearings from immigration attorneys’ standpoint within a specific location and bounded

system, thus, a single case study design was used.

Role of the Researcher

My primary role in this study was to be a reliable data collection instrument;

therefore, I served as an observer-participant during the in-depth face-to-face

semistructured interviews, court observations, and court document reviews. Maxell

(2013) and Patton (2002) discussed the significance of the researcher’s role in qualitative

studies, where they argued that researchers remain the key data collection instrument.

Maxwell and Patton noted that the researcher’s behavior, knowledge, and experience play

a relevant role in the success of the study. I had direct contact with participants as I

recruited them by e-mail, telephone, and face-to-face conversations. I collected

semistructured interview data, and conducted court observations and court document

reviews, which I transcribed, coded, analyzed, and interpreted.

I did not recruit family members, friends, coworkers, or professional and personal

associates, to prevent perceived coercion to participate. However, I asked professional

associates if they knew individuals who met the study’s criteria to get snowball sampling

started. Therefore, I did not have any personal or professional relationship with potential

research participants. I had no power over potential participants; thus, they were able to

participate without feeling coerced or obligated to take part in the study.

It is important that researchers demonstrate awareness of how biases may emerge;

be thoughtful and attempt to minimize the effects of the researcher on data collection; and

attempt to address bias through systematic and comprehensive analysis, and

reflectiveness on the research methods, the decisions made, and the consequent

limitations of the study (Spencer et al., 2003). I used specific strategies such as

reflexivity, which pertains to self-examination where the researcher acknowledges

values, assumptions, prejudice, and influence of the researcher in the study (Hand, 2003;

Koch & Harrington, 1998; Whiting, 2008). Thus, I acknowledged any experiences,

biases, and values relating to the research topic. I did not have any biases against the

research participants and treated them respectfully. I considered participants’ perceptions

and there were no conflicts of interests in the study. After completion and approval of this

study, I will e-mail each participant a summary report of the research findings.

Methodology

In this section, I discuss the methodology, where I provide enough depth so that

other researchers can replicate the study. I organize the methodology section in the

following subsections: participant selection logic; instrumentation; procedures for

recruitment, participation, and data collection; and data analysis plan.

Participant Selection Logic

Snowball sampling, which is a subset of purposeful sampling and is a

nonprobability sampling method (Chambliss & Schutt, 2016; Patton, 1990), was used to

identify potential participants who met the selection criteria for inclusion in the case

study. The selection criteria for being in this study included active immigration attorneys

in a specific city in Texas who were licensed to practice law in an immigration court in

Texas, thus, having expertise in removal proceeding hearings. Active immigration

attorneys who were known to meet the selection criteria were initially contacted by e-

mail, telephone, or face-to-face conversations. They were sent an invitation letter to

participate in the study and were asked to recommend other active immigration attorneys

who met the selection criteria for this study (see Appendix A).

Unlike quantitative studies, the sample size in qualitative studies tends to be

smaller (Mason, 2010). Gustafsson (2017) discussed multiple and single case studies. For

single case study research, if the researcher only wants to study one single thing such as a

single group of people, a single case study is the best choice (Gustafsson, 2017; Yin,

2003). In this study, I used a single case study design to understand delays regarding

deportation hearings based on 10 immigration attorneys’ perceptions. Gustafsson argued

that when a single case study is used, the researcher can question old theoretical

relationships and explore new ones, thus, conducting a more careful study.

Students face the dilemma of data saturation when they design a qualitative

research study where they interview study participants (Fusch & Ness, 2015; O’Reilly &

Parker, 2012; Walker, 2012). Specifically, students must figure out how many interviews

are enough to reach data saturation (Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006). Data saturation is

reached when the researcher has provided enough information to replicate the study,

when the researcher’s ability to obtain additional new information has been achieved, and

when further coding is no longer possible (Guest et al., 2006; O’Reilly & Parker, 2012;

Walker, 2012). For this single case study, 10 participants were used to find trends in

participants’ removal proceeding hearing experiences. The relationship between

saturation and sample size was sufficient in this study because through snowball

sampling, the use of 10 immigration attorneys’ interviews along with deportation hearing

observations and court document reviews allowed me to obtain the richest data possible,

thus reaching data saturation.

Instrumentation

Data collection instrumentation included the use of an interview guide,

observation protocol, and an immigration court document review guide, which were

sufficient to answer the central research question and three subquestions.

Semistructured interviews. I used a 45-minute researcher-developed interview

questionnaire to conduct individual in-depth face-to-face semistructured interviews with

10 immigration attorneys in a specific city in Texas (see Appendix B for the interview

guide). Raworth, Narayan, Sweetman, Rowlands, and Hopkins (2012) reported that

semistructured interviews are widely used and unlike structured interviews that follow a

rigid format, semistructured interviews focus on specific themes but cover them in a

conversational style. Raworth et al. noted that semistructured interviews tend to be the

best way to learn about the motivations behind people’s choices, behaviors, attitudes, and

beliefs, as well as the effects of specific policies and events on their lives. In addition,

Raworth et al. explained that semistructured interviews often provide valuable

information that the researcher did not anticipate.

Deportation hearing observations. I conducted deportation hearing

observations, which included descriptions of the removal proceeding hearings and visual

layout of the court, as well as provided my reflections on the hearings (see Appendix C

for the observation protocol). Removal proceeding hearings are open to the public unless

immigration judges decide to conduct close hearings. I attended removal proceeding

hearings that were open to the public and used the observation protocol to obtain

information about each case. The observations allowed me to analyze the delay

phenomenon from another angle. During individual hearings, both parties presented their

case before the immigration judge.

Court document reviews. I also reviewed public immigration court documents

(see Appendix D for the immigration court document review guide). I collected public

information on the ICE and prosecutorial discretion, the purpose of the 180-day asylum

employment authorization document (EAD) clock notice, how undocumented immigrants

protect themselves from immigration fraud, how to post bond, and steps they can take if

they disagree with the judges’ decision. In addition, I collected public information on

what undocumented immigrants should do if they move to a new location; mechanisms

for building their case up; qualification criteria for asylum relief and withholding of

removal and the convention against torture; what they should do when they miss their

hearings; qualification criteria for victims of trafficking and benefits and reliefs for these

victims; special immigration juvenile status; and U visa eligibility.

Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection

I completed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) research protections training. I

also complied with all federal and state regulations, such as abiding by the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS’, 2009) protection of human subjects

code of federal regulations. After receiving Walden University’s IRB approval to conduct

the study, I contacted active immigration attorneys in a specific city in Texas who were

licensed to practice law in an immigration court in Texas, individually by e-mail,

telephone, and face-to-face conversations. Contact information for active immigration

attorneys was obtained from personal contacts and public information available online. I

did not include anyone with whom I had a personal relationship such as family members,

friends, coworkers, or professional and personal associates, to prevent perceived coercion

to participate. I asked professional and personal associates if they knew immigration

attorneys who met the study’s criteria to get snowball sampling going. I also used public

information available online, such as from attorney websites.

Potential participants were sent an invitation letter to participate in the study and

were asked to recommend other active immigration attorneys who met the selection

criteria for this study (see Appendix A). Participants were informed that they could ask

questions about the study by e-mail, telephone, or face-to-face conversations. On the

invitation letter to participate in the study, potential participants were instructed to

complete the questions on the letter and e-mail them back to me if they were interested in

participating in the study, which helped to ensure that they met the selection criteria for

participation. As I received the e-mail responses to the questions asked on the invitation

to participate letter from the potential parrticipants who were interested in participating in

the study and I ensured that they met the study’s selection criteria, I contacted each

participant by telephone or e-mail to set-up an appointment to conduct individual

semistructured interviews at a time that was convenient for them. The interviews took

place in a private meeting room at a public library.

Before taking part in the interview, I asked each participant to read and sign a

hard copy consent form. The consent form outlined areas such as the voluntary nature of

the study and that no compensation was offered to participants. I answered participants’

questions while they reviewed the consent form. Interviews were audio-taped and took

approximately 45 minutes (see Appendix B for the interview guide). Before the interview

session ended, I answered participants’ questions and discussed the transcription review

process that would take place by telephone or e-mail at a later date. I then concluded the

interviews and thanked participants for their participation.

It was unlikely that participation would arouse any acute discomfort as the study

only involved the risk of the minor discomforts that can be encountered in daily life such

as fatigue. After I transcribed the interviews, I e-mailed each participant their transcript

of the interview and asked that they review the transcript for accuracy, which helped to

ensure that the transcriptions were accurate, credible, and valid (see Harper & Cole,

2012). I discussed the participants’ feedback with them by telephone or e-mail. The

transcription review process took approximately 25 minutes. I also conducted deportation

hearing observations at hearings that were open to the public and used the observation

protocol to obtain information about each case (see Appendix C). In addition, using the

immigration court document review guide (see Appendix D), I conducted public

immigration court document reviews.

I will e-mail a summary report of the research findings to all participants after the

study is completed and approved. I am the only one with access to the research data in

my private home office, which are kept secured in a locked file cabinet and password-

protected computer. I will keep all data for at least 5 years based on Walden University

guidelines and after that time period, I will use techniques such as shredding and

demagnetizing to properly destroy the data.

Data Analysis Plan

I transcribed the interviews, deportation hearing observations, and court document

reviews, and managed the data with NVivo. NVivo is a data management tool that helps

the researcher to index segments of text to particular themes, link research notes to

coding, carry out complex search and retrieve operations, and help the researcher in

examining possible relationships between the themes (King, 2004). To analyze the

interview questions against the central research question and three subquestions, I

analyzed the data using the open code technique. First, data were organized and prepared

for analysis. Interview transcripts were recorded, transcribed, and imported into NVivo.

In the second step, data were read holistically and raw codes were created to gain a

general sense of the information conveyed within the entire dataset. Raw codes were

created from a preliminary analysis of the data to describe the narratives and determine

possible themes and patterns that may be of significance. In the third step, raw codes

were turned into axial codes. Codes were grouped together based on similarity. In the

fourth step, data were coded and grouped into broader thematic categories. Data were

interpreted to determine overarching descriptions to represent a collection of codes. In the

fifth step, general case descriptions were conceptualized to reanalyze categories and

codes as emerging themes and subthemes. Finally, in the sixth step, data were interpreted

and triangulated with all data sources in the study by analyzing the frequencies of theme

occurrences, significance of themes, and case contexts. During data analysis, I found no

discrepant cases.

Issues of Trustworthiness

Qualitative researchers often seek a depth of information so that they can gain

understanding and insight related to the meaning that individuals give to their experiences

(Kaminski & Pitney, 2004). Kaminski and Pitney (2004) explained that unlike

quantitative research that is objective and generalizable, qualitative research is subjective

and contextual; thus, qualitative researchers often use interviews and observations to

collect data. The researchers noted that similar to traditional forms of research, issues of

quality are a concern for qualitative researchers and practitioners. In this section, I

discuss strategies that I used to ensure trustworthiness in this case study. I organized this

section in the following subsections: credibility, transferability, dependability,

confirmability, and ethical considerations.

Credibility

Instead of internal validity, qualitative researchers tend to use the term credibility

(Kaminski & Pitney, 2004). Kaminski and Pitney (2004) related that credibility pertains

to whether the research findings capture what is really occurring in the context and

whether researchers learned what they intended to learn. Strategies used to establish

credibility include triangulation, member checks, peer review, saturation, reflexivity,

prolonged engagement, negative case analysis, and persistent observation (Anney, 2014;

Kaminski & Pitney, 2004). In this study, I established credibility through triangulation,

transcription reviews, saturation, and reflexivity. Triangulation involves using multiple

data sources in a study to produce understanding (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006). In this study,

I used three data sources: (a) semistructured interviews, (b) deportation hearing

observations, and (c) court document reviews. I used transcriptions reviews where I e-

mailed each participant the transcript of their interview, asked that they review the

transcript for accuracy, and discussed participants’ feedback with them by telephone or e-

mail. I worked to achieve data saturation by using three sources and provided enough

information to replicate the study. Through reflexivity, I disclosed all biases and

experiences related to delays in removal proceeding hearings.

Transferability

Transferability is the qualitative counterpart to external validity and pertains to

the degree to which the results of the study can be transferred to other contexts or settings

with other participants, thus, the interpretative equivalent of generalizability (Anney,

2014; Bitsch, 2005; Tobin & Begley, 2004). Strategies used to establish transferability

include thick description, purposive sampling, and variation in participant selection

(Anney, 2014). I ensured transferability by providing rich, thick description of details

pertaining to the methodology and the study’s context and participants. In addition, I also

used snowball sampling, which is a subset of purposive sampling, to recruit immigration

attorneys with expertise in removal proceeding hearings.

Dependability

Dependability is the qualitative counterpart to reliability and pertains to “the

stability of the findings over time” (Bitsch, 2005, p. 86). Dependability is established

using strategies such as audit trail, code-recode strategy, stepwise replication and peer

examination, and triangulation (Anney, 2014; Chilisa & Preece, 2005; Kreftling, 1991;

Schwandt, Lincoln, & Guba, 2007). I established dependability using audit trail and

triangulation. The audit trail strategy involves examining the inquiry process and product

to validate the data where the researcher accounts for all research decisions and activities

to show how the data were collected, recorded, and analyzed (Anney, 2014; Bowen,

2009; Li, 2004). To ensure a thorough audit trail, I kept the following documents for

cross-checking the inquiry process: notes and transcriptions of interviews, deportation

hearing observations, and court document reviews; tape-recorded interviews, and

transcription review documents. In addition, I used triangulation where the three sources

of data were used to obtain corroborating evidence (see Anney, 2014; Onwuegbuzie &

Leech, 2007).

Confirmability

Confirmability is the qualitative counterpart to objectivity and pertains to how

much other researchers can confirm or corroborate the results of the study (Anney, 2014;

Baxter & Eyles, 1997). Strategies used to achieve confirmability include audit trail,

reflexive journal, and triangulation (Anney, 2014; Bowen, 2009; Koch, 2006; Lincoln &

Guba, 1985). I established confirmability in this study through audit trails, reflexivity,

and triangulation.

Ethical Procedures

I completed the NIH human research protections training and conducted the case

study based on Walden University’s IRB ethical guidelines. I followed all federal and

state regulations in a specific city in Texas to ensure the ethical protection of research

participants. I began data collection only after receiving Walden University’s IRB

approval. The interview data collected presented no greater than minimal risk such as

fatigue and becoming emotionally upset about delays in removal proceeding hearings. I

only attended removal proceeding hearings that were open to the public and reviewed

immigration court documents that were available to the public. I also followed Walden

University’s IRB guidelines to protect the data that were generated from the interview

questions, deportation hearing observations, and court document reviews.

Before I began each interview, I obtained participants’ permission to participate in

the study. I gave each participant a consent form that had been approved by Walden

University’s IRB for them to review and sign. In the consent form, I outlined

participants’ protections and ethical guidelines that were followed during the research

study such as keeping their identities and data confidential, the voluntary nature of the

study, and their right to withdraw or stop at any time. In the consent form, I also outlined

any physical or psychological risks that they might experience and indicated that they did

not have to complete any part of the study with which they were not comfortable. It was

unlikely that participation in this study would arouse any acute discomfort as the case

study only involved the risk of the minor discomforts such as fatigue or becoming upset.

I respected all participants during the research process and data collection stage.

Because I interviewed the participants, I knew their identity, which I kept confidential. I

obtained participants’ permission to audio-tape the interviews and participants were

informed that a verbatim transcription would be made, which they later reviewed for

accuracy. The transcriptions were analyzed at a later time and I have kept all audio-

recorded data secured. Only my supervising committee had access to the data.

After collecting the data, I eliminated all identifiable information; thus, the

interviews were numbered or coded to match each participant, which protected

participants’ identities. All data are kept in a locked file cabinet and password protected

computer in my personal home office. Based on Walden University guidelines, I will

keep all data for at least 5 years and then properly destroy all data after that time period

using methods such as shredding and demagnetizing. In the consent form, I provided

participants with my contact information and the contact information for my chair in case

they had any further questions or concerns about the case study. In addition, they were

provided with the contact information of the Walden University representative with

whom they could talk privately about their rights as participants. After the study is

completed and approved, I will e-mail a summary report of the research findings to each

participant.

Summary

I explored the perceptions and attitudes of 10 active immigration attorneys about

delays in removal proceeding hearings in an immigration court in Texas. I transcribed the

in-depth face-to-face semistructured interviews, deportation hearing observations, and

court document reviews. I managed the data through the use of NVivo and analyzed the

data through open code technique. The data collected presented no greater than minimal

risk to the participants and I abided by Walden University’s IRB guidelines to protect

participants and the data.

In Chapter 3, I included the research design and rationale, role of the researcher,

methodology, issues of trustworthiness, and a summary. In Chapter 4, I will include the

setting, demographics, data collection, data analysis, evidence of trustworthiness, results,

and a summary. In Chapter 5, I will include the interpretation of findings, limitations of

the study, recommendations, implications, and a conclusion.

Chapter 4: Results

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore the perceptions and

attitudes of 10 immigration attorneys about delays in removal proceeding hearings in an

immigration court in Texas with one of the highest numbers of pending cases. In-depth

face-to-face semistructured interviews with 10 immigration attorneys, deportation

hearing observations, and court document reviews were used to address the central

research question about immigration attorneys’ perceptions and attitudes about delays in

removal proceeding hearings in an immigration court in Texas. In addition, three

subquestions were considered: (a) How do immigration attorneys perceive the effects of

delays on the welfare of immigrant clients, (b) How do immigration attorneys perceive

the effects of delays on client-attorney relationships, and (c) What are the perceptions of

immigration attorneys about potential solutions to the delay crisis?

I analyzed the interviews, deportation hearing observations, and court document

reviews using the open coding technique. Themes that emerged from the data are

presented according to respective research questions. In Chapter 4, I include the setting,

demographics, data collection, data analysis, evidence of trustworthiness, results, and a

summary.

Setting

Snowball sampling was used to obtain a sample of 10 immigration attorneys who

were licensed to practice law in an immigration court in Texas. Interviews were

conducted from November 19, 2016 to January 19, 2017. Interviews were conducted at a

private meeting room at a public library in Texas. In addition, immigration deportation

hearing observations and court document reviews were conducted at an immigration

court in Texas. There were no organizational conditions that influenced participants or

their experiences at the time of the study that may influence interpretation of the study

results.

Demographics

Potential participants who met the selection criteria for inclusion in the case study

were invited to take part in the study (see Appendix A). The selection criteria for being in

this study included active immigration attorneys in a specific city in Texas who were

licensed to practice law in an immigration court in Texas, thus, having expertise in

removal proceeding hearings. From the 30 active immigration attorneys who were

initially contacted, 10 participated in the study. In the sample, four participants (40%)

were male and six participants (60%) were female. Table 1 displays the summary of

participant demographics.

Table 1

Participants’ Demographics

Participants

Demographics

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Data Collection

The instrumentation included a 45-minute researcher-developed interview

questionnaire to attain the perceptions of immigration attorneys (see Appendix B for the

interview guide and Appendix E for the summative interview table), an observation

protocol (see Appendix C), and an immigration court document review guide (see

Appendix D). The interview questions obtained participants’ perceptions about the (a)

immigration crisis, (b) court delays, (c) types of cases being delayed, (d) relief, (e) client

reactions, (f) client-attorney relationships, (g) dissatisfied clients, (h) financial aspects, (i)

operations of attorneys, (j) work load, (k) consequences of delays, (l) impacting factors,

(m) prioritization, (n) change implementation, (o) resolution, (p) policymaker strategies,

(q) optimization of courts, and (r) bringing change to immigration courts.

Using the observation protocol, I attended public removal proceeding hearings in

an immigration court in Texas and obtained information on the hearings and the visual

layout of the court. In addition, I provided my reflections on the hearings. Using the

immigration court document review guide, I reviewed public court records and obtained

information on the ICE and prosecutorial discretion, the purpose of the 180-day asylum

employment authorization document (EAD) clock notice, how undocumented immigrants

protect themselves from immigration fraud, how to post bond, and steps they can take if

they disagree with the judges’ decision. In addition, I collected public information on

what undocumented immigrants should do if they move to a new location, mechanisms

for building their case up, qualification criteria for asylum relief and withholding of

removal and the convention against torture, what they should do when they miss their

hearings, qualification criteria for victims of trafficking and benefits and reliefs for these

victims, special immigration juvenile status, and U visa eligibility.

The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Participants participated in

transcription reviews, where I e-mailed each participant their transcript of the interview

and asked that they review the transcript for accuracy. Their feedback was incorporated

in the transcriptions. In addition, the court observations and document reviews were

transcribed. I managed all three data sources with NVivo.

Data Analysis

I transcribed the interviews, deportation hearing observations, and court document

reviews, and managed the data with NVivo. Appendix H shows six word trees of the

subthemes from NVivo, Appendix I shows two cluster diagrams, Appendix J shows three

mind maps, and Appendix K shows a word frequency table. NVivo is a data management

tool that helps the researcher to index segments of text to particular themes, link research

notes to coding, carry out complex search and retrieve operations, and help the researcher

in examining possible relationships between the themes (King, 2004). To analyze the