Remote Adjudication in Immigration
89 Pages Posted: 21 Mar 2015 Last revised: 13 Nov 2015
Date Written: March 19, 2015
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, to apply to remain lawfully in the United States, or to 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.
Keywords: immigration law, immigration courts, remote adjudication of immigration cases
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation