July 21, 2022

Twenty-Five Recommendations to the Immigration Appeal Division

On July 11, 2022, Bellissimo Law Group PC made the following recommendations in response to the Immigration Appeal Division’s continuing efforts to simplify and modernize their Rules:

Twenty-Five Recommendations

1. Clarity and Simplicity of terminology will help improve application of Rules in practice.
2. Appeals must be resolved in a manner that is consistent with the “interests of justice.”
3. Removal of counsel on the basis of a “conflict of interest” must be considered.
4. There is a need for clarification on the format of notice of appeals.
5. All available information must be included in the Appeal Record.
6. The proposed 45-day timeline for production of materials could have significant, and potentially actionable, consequences.
7. Translator’s declaration should include a declaration of “no conflict.”
8. Measures should be undertaken to divert mentally disordered appellants from the removal process.
9. Language must be consistent across the Rules.
10. Interpreter’s declaration should include a declaration of “no conflict.”
11. The required provision of witness information and disclosure within the 45-day timeline could have significant, and again actionable, consequences.
12. Further clarity is required regarding confidentiality of materials filed in informal resolution processes.
13. Further guidelines are required regarding who can function as an ADR conference facilitator.
14. All parties should have the opportunity to request a “conference.”
15. Hearings should follow the principles of justice and the rule of law.
16. Qualify time limits for change of location of hearings to include “within fifteen days of receipt of the Notice of Appeal.”
17. Qualify time limits for changing the date and/or time of a proceeding to include “within fifteen days of receipt of the Notice of Appeal.”
18. The test of “exceptional circumstances” for changing date/time/location of a hearing must be clarified.
19. Additional guidelines must be provided with respect to the threshold test for assessment of claims of inadequate counsel.
20. Decisions of the Division should only be given orally if they are positive and only if the Respondent is present.
21. Retrospective application of the Rules will offend the rule of law.
22. Change reference to “counsel” in Schedule to “Authorized Representative.”
23. The Rules should allow for identification and review of multiple issues of inadmissibility on appeal.
24. Information on authorized representatives provided on the IRB’s website should be neutral.
25. The IRB should provide more comprehensive information, including legal resources and up-to-date policy decisions, on its webpage.

For more details on our recommendations, please contact us.