Immigration courts schedule mega master hearings, alarming attorneys

If an immigration court can cram more than 100 master calendar hearings into a single session, due process has to fight for space. Those first appearances are where a judge explains the charges, the right to counsel at no expense to the government, the availability of free or low-cost legal services, and the chance to challenge government evidence before a case moves forward.

Under the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s practice manual, master calendar hearings are meant for pleadings, scheduling and other preliminary matters, not a trial on the merits. Judges are supposed to explain the Notice to Appear in non-technical language, take pleadings, narrow the issues and set deadlines and later hearing dates. Federal rules also say at least 10 days must pass between service of the Notice to Appear and the initial master calendar hearing unless the respondent waives that waiting period for a prompt hearing.

Immigration attorneys and the American Immigration Lawyers Association say some courts are now scheduling so-called mega master hearings with 100 or more people at a time, a sharp jump from the two or three dozen people that had typically been grouped together for a first hearing. Lawyers say the change lands hardest on people without counsel, who may not understand the stakes, the schedule or the consequences of missing a date. In the accounts being raised, late arrival or failure to appear can lead to a removal order.

A Massachusetts immigrant-rights coalition said Boston, Chelmsford and Hartford courts were among those holding very large preliminary hearings, sometimes with more than 100 cases at once. Chicago has also been cited in recent reporting as one of the cities where the tactic has been used. The pattern has alarmed attorneys because the first hearing is often the only place where a respondent can learn what the government is alleging and what options may still exist.

The pressure to move cases faster comes against a backdrop of an immigration court backlog that one recent secondary source described as close to four million cases. That scale helps explain why the U.S. Department of Justice’s immigration courts are looking for ways to move dockets, but it also sharpens the central question now facing judges, lawyers and migrants alike: whether a system built to explain rights and sort out defenses can still do that work when the courtroom starts to feel like an assembly line.