‘No statutory or regulatory foundation for the administrative closure of an immigration case…’
(Joshua Paladino, Liberty Headlines) The Obama Administration avoided federal immigration law by granting deferred status to illegal immigrants eligible for deportation.
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals is the largest single program that grants deferred status.
In the later years of the Obama administration, when immigration courts became backlogged, judges employed “administrative closure,” a practice whereby judges close pending cases without ever taking them to trial, effectively giving amnesty to illegal immigrants by throwing out their cases.
The Immigration Reform Law Institute, the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, filed a legal brief arguing against administrative closure.
“There is no statutory or regulatory foundation for the administrative closure of an
immigration case,” the amicus brief said. “Nevertheless, over the past three decades, immigration courts have increasingly resorted to this practice.”
Administrative closure served the open borders agenda by giving de facto legal status to an unspecified group of illegal aliens.
“Well over 100,000 and possibly as many as 200,000 illegal aliens were effectively amnestied through administrative closures during the second term of the Obama administration alone,” IRLI said in a press release. “Many of these illegal aliens became eligible for work authorization.
“Officials used administrative closure to manipulate court records to designate these cases as ‘closed’ in official records, when in reality, the backlog of unresolved cases only grew and grew.”
The practice, however, isn’t always about an open borders agenda.
Administrative closure also had a practical purpose: Immigration courts could not handle the influx of cases, so they pretended the cases didn’t exist.
“Some knowingly promoted illegitimate amnesty-like policies that are clearly outside of federal immigration laws,” the press release said. “Others selfishly hoped to boost the performance statistics for the immigration hearings they were employed to conduct.”
Judges for immigration courts claimed they needed administrative closure to manage their caseload, but IRLI attorney Elizabeth Hohenstein said they have procedures that do not subvert the law.
“In fact the immigration courts have a full panoply of lawful case management tools that provide flexibility for immigration proceedings when needed,” Hohenstein said. “So today we are confronted with this expanding population of illegal aliens living and working in this country with impunity.”