‘I Have No Control’: Detention Center Creep in U.S. Immigration Courts

Abstract

How do immigration case outcomes differ between two detained immigration courts and one nondetained court? What shapes due process in immigration courts—location, atmosphere, procedure, personnel, and/or detention status? This thesis offers a comparison of Miami Krome Immigration Court, a detained court located within Krome Detention Center that has the highest asylum denial rate in the country, New York – Varick Street Immigration Court, a detained court in New York City with lower denial rates and a unique guaranteed representation program, and the nondetained Miami Immigration Court. Through ethnographic court observations, interviews with experts, and data analysis, I seek to understand whether there are substantive differences in procedure, representation, and case outcomes for respondents in public hearings, known as master calendar hearings, in these courts, in order to determine how immigration courts can mediate access to due process. My main finding is a phenomenon I term detention center creep, wherein the struggle in detained immigration courts ceases to be the respondent’s immigration case and becomes relief from detention itself. Furthermore, I argue that this is made possible by two factors: (1) the intentional curtailment of judicial discretion through internal directives, bureaucratic pressure, and threats to prevent outcomes that benefit immigrants, and (2) the federal government’s weaponization of immigration detention, wherein immigrants are placed into prolonged detention to disincentivize them to continue with their cases and instead accept removal orders or seek voluntary departure from the U.S. My policy recommendations are both immediate and structural. I advocate for expanded financial accountability within DHS to ensure funds are directed towards detention center and detained courtroom infrastructure, guaranteeing that all individuals in immigration proceedings can appear remotely, and expanded civil society legal representation programs modeled after the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP) in other cities with detained immigration courts. On a broader scale, I call for universal representation for all respondents in immigration proceedings paid for by the government, abolition of pretermission, asylum cooperative agreements (ACAs), and mandatory immigration detention, and the separation of immigration courts and immigration detention centers. Looking towards the future, I argue that there must be accountability for the immigration judges, federal agents, and government officials who devised and carried out the Trump administration’s unlawful immigration enforcement regime.