109 Nw. U. L. Rev. 933 (2014-2015)
Remote Adjudication in Immigration

handle is hein.journals/illlr109 and id is 955 raw text is: 



Copyright 2015 by Ingrid V. Eagly                            Printed in U.S.A.
                                                              Vol 109, No. 4



REMOTE ADJUDICATION IN IMMIGRATION


                                                        Ingrid V. Eagly


     ABSTRACT-This Article reports the findings of the first empirical
study of the use of televideo technology to remotely adjudicate the
immigration cases of litigants held in detention centers in the United States.
Comparing the outcomes of televideo and in-person cases in federal
immigration courts, it reveals an outcome paradox: detained televideo
litigants were more likely than detained in-person litigants to be deported,
but judges did not deny respondents' claims in televideo cases at higher
rates. Instead, these inferior results were associated with the fact that
detained litigants assigned to televideo courtrooms exhibited depressed
engagement with the adversarial process-they were less likely to retain
counsel, apply to remain lawfully in the United States, or seek an
immigration benefit known as voluntary departure.
     Drawing on interviews of stakeholders and court observations from
the highest-volume detained immigration courts in the country, this Article
advances several explanations for why televideo litigants might be less
likely than other detained litigants to take advantage of procedures that
could help them. These reasons include litigants' perception that televideo
is unfair and illegitimate, technical challenges in litigating claims over a
screen, remote litigants' lower quality interactions with other courtroom
actors, and the exclusion of a public audience from the remote courtroom.
This Article's findings begin an important conversation about technology's
threat to meaningful litigant participation in the adversarial process.
     Author-Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law. I am indebted to
Joseph Doherty and Susan Long for their guidance, and to Steven Shafer
for his assistance coding the immigration court data presented in this
Article. Ahilan Arulanantham, Mario Barnes, Lenni Benson, Sam Bray,
Linus Chan, Scott Cummings, Sharon Dolovich, Alice Eagly, Laura
G6mez, David Hausman, Geoffrey Heeren, C6sar Garcia Hernndez, Jill
Horwitz, Dan Kesselbrenner, Jennifer Koh, Jennifer Laurin, Julia Mass,
Jennifer Mnookin, Hiroshi Motomura, Jason Oh, Jaya Ramji-Nogales,
Emily Ryo, Steven Schulman, Joanna Schwartz, Juliet Stumpf, Yolanda
Vdzquez, Beth Werlin, and Jordan Woods gave helpful feedback. Funding
for this study was generously provided by a grant from the Hellman
Fellows Program. Alexandra Grady-Reitan, Dan Lahana, Ivan Waggoner,
and Danielle Weiss provided excellent research assistance.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?