EOIR backlog reduction initiatives
🧭 Overview of EOIR Backlog Reduction Initiatives:
Case Prioritization and Docket Management
Hiring More Immigration Judges
Expanding Use of Technology (e.g., virtual hearings)
Implementation of Performance Metrics for Judges
Use of Administrative Closure and Prosecutorial Discretion
Asylum Processing Reforms (e.g., “Asylum Pre-screening” courts)
Limited Continuances
📚 Detailed Case Law Explanations (More than 5 Cases)
1. Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018)
Issue: Can immigration judges use administrative closure to pause or remove cases from their active docket?
Background: Administrative closure was widely used to manage caseloads and allow non-priority cases to be paused. However, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions overruled prior BIA precedent allowing administrative closure.
Holding: Immigration judges and the BIA do not have the general authority to administratively close cases unless specifically authorized by regulation or settlement.
Impact on Backlog: This decision eliminated a critical tool for judges to manage their dockets, directly contributing to the backlog. It was criticized as forcing judges to process low-priority cases that previously could have been paused.
Subsequent Development: Later overturned in Matter of Cruz-Valdez (2021) under the Biden administration.
2. Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021)
Issue: Reconsideration of the Castro-Tum decision on administrative closure.
Holding: Attorney General Merrick Garland overruled Castro-Tum, restoring immigration judges' discretion to administratively close cases, provided there is a legal basis and justification.
Impact on Backlog: This decision re-enabled a backlog-reducing mechanism, allowing IJs to administratively close low-priority or long-pending cases, particularly where noncitizens had other forms of relief pending (e.g., USCIS petitions).
Significance: Seen as a shift toward prosecutorial discretion and docket efficiency, especially after Trump-era restrictions.
3. Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018)
Issue: What standard should be applied when deciding whether to grant a continuance for collateral relief (e.g., adjustment of status based on an I-130 pending with USCIS)?
Holding: The Attorney General required that continuances should only be granted when the underlying application (e.g., USCIS petition) is likely to be granted and has a direct effect on removability.
Impact: Made it harder to get continuances, thereby increasing the pace of case adjudication but also potentially leading to unjust removals and further appeals.
Criticism: This initiative focused on speed over due process, contributing to appeals and remands, which ironically could further burden the system.
4. Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) and Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021)
Issue: Eligibility of asylum claims based on membership in a particular social group (PSG)—particularly those involving domestic or gang violence.
2018 Holding (AG Sessions): Significantly narrowed the scope of PSG-based asylum, ruling that claims based on private violence (e.g., domestic abuse) generally do not qualify.
Impact on EOIR: Created stricter standards, which were intended to reduce the number of credible fear and asylum claims, a major portion of EOIR backlog.
2021 Holding (AG Garland): Vacated the 2018 decision and instructed adjudicators to revert to pre-2018 standards, pending further rulemaking.
Impact on Backlog:
Short-term: 2018 decision led to fewer asylum grants but more litigation.
Long-term: Reversal in 2021 opened the door to more asylum eligibility, potentially increasing cases but improving fairness.
5. Grace v. Barr, 965 F.3d 883 (D.C. Cir. 2020)
Issue: Challenge to policies restricting credible fear interviews based on Matter of A-B- and other asylum restrictions.
Holding: The court struck down several Trump-era rules limiting asylum eligibility in credible fear proceedings, finding they violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and due process.
Impact on EOIR:
Affirmed the need for individualized asylum determinations.
Indirectly challenged attempts to reduce backlog by denying access at the credible fear stage.
6. Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018)
Issue: Whether a Notice to Appear (NTA) lacking the date/time of the hearing can trigger the "stop-time rule" for cancellation of removal eligibility.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that NTAs without time/place are defective for triggering the stop-time rule.
Impact:
Resulted in tens of thousands of motions to terminate or reopen removal proceedings.
Temporarily increased backlog as courts had to deal with these motions, despite the case not being intended as a backlog measure.
7. Chavez-Chilel v. Garland, 47 F.4th 848 (8th Cir. 2022)
Issue: Applied post-Matter of L-A-B-R- standard on continuances. The court upheld denial of a continuance despite the respondent having an I-130 petition pending.
Impact: Reinforced the stringent criteria for continuances, in line with the backlog reduction strategy of the time.
8. Policy Memo: PM 21-25 (2021) – Use of Prosecutorial Discretion
While not a case, this internal EOIR memo directed ICE Office of Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) attorneys to exercise prosecutorial discretion by dismissing or administratively closing low-priority cases.
Effect:
Aimed to clear non-priority cases from the docket (e.g., long-time residents, elderly, no criminal record).
Empowered DHS attorneys to reduce pressure on courts.
Led to thousands of case dismissals between 2021–2022, but faced criticism and partial rollbacks later.
🧾 Summary Table
| Case/Policy | Topic | Effect on Backlog |
|---|---|---|
| Castro-Tum (2018) | Admin closure banned | Increased backlog |
| Cruz-Valdez (2021) | Admin closure restored | Decreased backlog |
| L-A-B-R- (2018) | Continuance standards | Limited delays, increased appeals |
| Matter of A-B- (2018/2021) | Asylum restrictions loosened/strengthened | Affected asylum caseload |
| Grace v. Barr (2020) | Credible fear restored | Reinforced access to court |
| Pereira v. Sessions (2018) | Defective NTAs | Procedural complications, increased motions |
| Chavez-Chilel (2022) | Continuance upheld | Showed strict application of L-A-B-R- |
| PM 21-25 (2021) | Prosecutorial discretion | Reduced backlog for low-priority cases |
⚖️ Conclusion
EOIR backlog reduction has been a balancing act between efficiency and fairness. While certain decisions (like Castro-Tum and L-A-B-R-) tried to speed up proceedings, they often led to more appeals, legal uncertainty, and procedural complications. Later reversals (Cruz-Valdez, prosecutorial discretion) recognized that flexibility and case management discretion are essential in a high-volume system.
The courts have played a critical role in checking EOIR policy, ensuring that due process isn't sacrificed in the name of expediency.
RELATED Blog
0 comments