The pendulum shift of immigration law swings relentlessly. Left, right, or otherwise, you will frequently discover that with migration law, justice is less blind and more fickle. One major shift happened when former Lawyer General (AG), Jeff Sessions identified that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the Immigration Judge (IJ) lack the general authority to temporarily get rid of low top-priority cases from their docket; a procedural tool called Administrative Closure (A/C).

Under the previous a/c standards, judges had the authority to enable aliens’ sensible chance to seek relief of being gotten rid of from the country beyond the court. This was a long-standing process of court management vital to reducing the frustrating court back long. In addition to its practicality, Congress developed the immigration court to operate like other Federal Courts under Post 3 of the Constitution; conduct proceedings, administer oaths, receive evidence, interrogate, take a look at, and cross-examine any witness. Based just on the evidence produced at the hearing, could the IJ choose whether an alien is detachable from the United States? Similar to other appellate courts, Congress authorized the BIA to function as an appellate body to review the decisions of the IJ and matters directed to them by the AG.

In addition, Congress offered IJs and the BIA the authority to “decide the private cases before them based on the relevant governing standards,” and to “exercise their independent judgment and discretion to take any action suitable and required for the personality of matters before them”. Sessions’ opposition to translating Congress’ requirements in favor of the previous air conditioning standards is that it hampers the “reasonable and efficient administration of immigration cases”. Sessions argue that air conditioner under the previous standards unduly benefits the alien and leaves the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the burden of looking to re-calendar the cases before the IJ. Sessions also explained that air conditioning is easier to acquire under the former guidelines.

While migration can certainly be a point of contention for many individuals, what is usually not debatable is that there are even more cases to litigate than that are courts to efficiently administer over them. Aliens find themselves in immigration court procedures for numerous factors and increasing rates. Thus it appears it should stand to factor that in the lawsuits of these cases, every affordable resource and tool to the disposal of the court and officers thereof should be utilized to ensure that the administration of justice stays effective and efficient.

In as much as administrative closure is not available, immigrants who originally had the chance to pursue legal alternatives for relief of elimination, discover themselves at a disadvantage in prosecuting their cases.