View source for Executive Office for Immigration Review

{{Short description|Office of the US Department of Justice}}
{{Organization 
|OrganizationName= Executive Office for Immigration Review
|OrganizationType= Executive Departments
|Mission= To adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation's immigration laws. EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings to ensure justice and due process in immigration matters.
|OrganizationExecutive= Director
|Employees= 1600
|Budget= $600 million (FY 2023)
|Website= https://www.justice.gov/eoir
|Services= Immigration court proceedings; Appellate reviews; Administrative hearings; 
|ParentOrganization= U.S. Department of Justice
|CreationLegislation= Created by internal reorganization in 1983
|Regulations= Immigration and Nationality Act
|HeadquartersLocation= 38.886944, -77.194277
|HeadquartersAddress= 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041, USA
}}The '''Executive Office for Immigration Review''' ('''EOIR''') is a sub-agency of the [[United States Department of Justice]] whose chief function is to conduct [[removal proceedings]] in immigration courts and adjudicate appeals arising from the proceedings. These [[administrative proceeding]]s determine the [[deportation|removability]] and [[wikt:admissibility|admissibility]] of individuals in the United States. {{As of|2023|1|19|df=US}}, there were sixty-eight immigration courts and three adjudication centers throughout the United States.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.justice.gov/eoir/office-of-the-chief-immigration-judge | title=Office of the Chief Immigration Judge | date=13 January 2015 }}</ref>

==History and jurisdiction==
[[File:Immigration Court of Labor Dept., 5-10-26 LCCN2016850915.jpg|thumb|An immigration proceeding conducted in the Department of Labor, 1926. ]]
EOIR was created in 1983 by the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] (DOJ) as part of an internal reorganization.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2013/10/02/48%20Fed%20Reg%208038%2002251983.pdf|title=48 Fed. Reg. 8038 (Feb. 25, 1983)|date=1983-02-25|website=U.S. Department of Justice}}</ref> Prior to 1983, the functions performed by EOIR were divided among different agencies. The earliest version of a specialized immigration service was the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), created in 1933, in the [[United States Department of Labor|Department of Labor]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/eoir/evolution-pre-1983|title=Evolution of the U.S Immigration Court System: Pre-1983|date=April 30, 2015|website=U.S. Department of Justice|access-date=2020-02-21}}</ref> Seven years later, in 1940, the INS moved from Labor to its present location in the Department of Justice. Twelve years after moving to DOJ, in 1952, the [[Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952|Immigration and Nationality Act]] organized all U.S. immigration laws into one statute, and designated "special inquiry officers,"  the predecessors of immigration judges, to decide questions of deportation.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=F.H.S.|date=1956|title=The Special Inquiry Officer in Deportation Proceedings|journal=Virginia Law Review|volume=42|issue=6|pages=803–830|doi=10.2307/1070271|jstor=1070271}}</ref>

EOIR adjudicates cases under a patchwork of immigration laws and regulations, including: 

* [[Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952]]
* [[Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965]]
* [[Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986]] 
* [[Refugee Act|United States Refugee Act of 1980]]
* [[Immigration Act of 1990]]
* [[Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996|Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996]]
* [[Real ID Act|Real ID Act of 2005]]

In addition to these statutes, other federal statutes, agency regulations, and executive orders, federal courts also play an important role in immigration law. Because litigants have the right to appeal a decision to [[United States courts of appeals|federal courts of appeal]], different areas of the United States effectively have [[Circuit split|different immigration laws]], notwithstanding [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] review. In addition, federal statutes not facially related to immigration also may play a role in admissibility, including those related to [[Public charge rule|public benefits]].

== Structure ==
Within the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]], EOIR is one of a number of offices that answers directly to the [[United States Deputy Attorney General|Deputy Attorney General]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/agencies/chart|title=Organizational Chart {{!}} DOJ {{!}} Department of Justice|website=U.S. Department of Justice|access-date=2020-02-21}}</ref> EOIR itself has two members of its leadership team: a director, who is appointed by the [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]],<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/1003.0|title=8 CFR § 1003.0 - Executive Office for Immigration Review.|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|language=en|access-date=2020-02-21}}</ref> and a deputy director who may exercise the full authority of the director.<ref name=":0" /> The current director is David L. Neal,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/eoir/office-of-the-director|title=Office of the Director |date=13 January 2015 }}</ref> and the current deputy director is Charles Adkins-Blanch.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/eoir/office-of-the-director|title=Office of the Director |date=13 January 2015 }}</ref>    

=== Adjudicative components ===

==== Office of the Chief Immigration Judge ====
The '''Office of the Chief Immigration Judge''' ('''OCIJ''') is the authority under which trial-level [[Immigration Judge (United States)|immigration judges]] are situated.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/1003.9|title=8 CFR § 1003.9 - Office of the Chief Immigration Judge.|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|language=en|access-date=2020-02-21}}</ref> Like the EOIR director and deputy director, the Chief Immigration Judge is appointed by the attorney general, though he or she is supervised directly by the director of EOIR.<ref name=":1" /> The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge oversees nearly 500 immigration judges, 60 immigration courts, and 30 assistant chief immigration judges (ACIJ) based in the various cities where U.S. immigration courts are located.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/eoir/office-of-the-chief-immigration-judge-bios|title=Office of the Chief Immigration Judge|date=2020-02-21|website=U.S. Department of Justice|access-date=2020-02-21}}</ref> Immigration judges adjudicate hearings under Section 240 of the [[Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952|INA]].<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/1003.10|title=8 CFR § 1003.10 - Immigration judges.|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|language=en|access-date=2020-02-22}}</ref> 

Immigration judges, unlike [[United States federal judge|Article III judges]], do not have life tenure, and are not appointed by the [[President of the United States|President]] nor confirmed by the [[United States Senate|Senate]] as required by the [[Appointments Clause]] in [[Article Two of the United States Constitution|Article II]]. Instead, they are civil servants appointed by the attorney general.<ref name=":2" /> The director of EOIR may also designate temporary immigration judges, who may serve for a period not longer than six months.<ref name=":2" />

Immigration adjudication does not conform to the separation of functions as prescribed by the [[Administrative Procedure Act (United States)|Administrative Procedure Act]]. Instead, the Department of Homeland Security initiates removal proceeding against a litigant; the immigration judge is employed by EOIR. In the removal proceeding, the U.S. Government is represented by an Assistant Chief Counsel, often referred to as a "DHS attorney" or "trial attorney."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/1192636/download|title=Immigration Court Practice Manual (Glossary - 2, p. 235/267 of PDF)|date=December 2016|website=Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review}}</ref> Unlike criminal adjudications in Article III courts, litigants in removal proceedings do not have a [[Gideon v. Wainwright|constitutional right to counsel]], except in narrow circumstances.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Wolf|first=Leslie|date=Winter 2014|title=After Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder: the Implications of Locating a Right to Counsel under the Rehabilitation Act|url=https://gould.usc.edu/students/journals/rlsj/issues/assets/docs/volume23/Winter2014/5.Wolf.pdf|journal=Review of Law and Social Justice|volume=23|pages=329–65}}</ref>

==== Board of Immigration Appeals ====
{{Main|Board of Immigration Appeals}}
The [[Board of Immigration Appeals]] (BIA) is the body to whom litigants may appeal their decisions from immigration judges. Composed of 21 members appointed by the attorney general, BIA decisions are generally decided by panels of three of its members.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/1003.1|title=8 CFR § 1003.1 - Organization, jurisdiction, and powers of the Board of Immigration Appeals.|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|language=en|access-date=2020-02-21}}</ref> Unlike courts of appeals in the state and federal systems, the BIA rarely holds oral arguments on appeals.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/eoir/board-of-immigration-appeals|title=Board of Immigration Appeals|date=2015-01-13|website=www.justice.gov|language=en|access-date=2020-02-21}}</ref> Instead, the BIA conducts a "paper review" of the materials, before issuing a written decision. Though the BIA issues hundreds of decisions each year, it chooses a small number as "precedent decisions,"<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/1003.1|title=8 CFR § 1003.1(g)(2)|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|access-date=2020-02-21}}</ref> which seek to provide guidance to immigration judges across the countries on the state of immigration law. After the BIA has decided a matter, it may choose to issue a final decision, [[Remand (court procedure)|remand]] to the immigration judge for further consideration, or refer the matter to the attorney general. The attorney general also may refer the case to him or herself and decide the case regardless of the decision of the BIA.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/ag-barr-issues-2-decisions-limiting-ways-immigrants-can-fight-n1073026|title=Barr issues 2 rulings limiting ways immigrants can fight deportation|website=NBC News|date=29 October 2019 |language=en|access-date=2020-02-21}}</ref>

==== Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer ====
The '''Office for the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer''' ('''OCAHO''') oversees specialized immigration [[Administrative law judge|administrative law judges]] as provided for in the [[Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986]] and the [[Immigration Act of 1990]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/eoir/office-of-the-chief-administrative-hearing-officer|title=Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer|date=2020-01-09|website=U.S. Department of Justice|access-date=2020-02-21}}</ref> Unlike the immigration judges in the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, who hear the merits of the immigration claims of litigants, the administrative law judges of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer handle matters related to the employment of non-citizens unlawfully residing in the United States; other unfair employment practices; and documentation [[fraud]] seeking immigration relief. 

=== Non-adjudicative components ===

==== General Counsel ====
The Office of General Counsel (OGC) is the chief legal counsel of EOIR.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/eoir/office-of-the-general-counsel|title=Office of the General Counsel|date=2015-01-13|website=www.justice.gov|language=en|access-date=2020-03-30}}</ref> The general counsel primarily provides legal guidance regarding precedential [[Board of Immigration Appeals]] and federal courts decisions and disseminates that information across EOIR. The Office of General Counsel also represents EOIR in [[Federal judiciary of the United States|federal court]] and responds to [[Freedom of Information Act (United States)|Freedom of Information Act]] requests directed at EOIR. The Office of General Counsel is also responsible for maintaining the standard for immigration attorneys nation-wide through its Attorney Discipline Program.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/eoir/attorney-discipline-program|title=EOIR: Attorney Discipline Program|date=2019-06-12|website=U.S. Department of Justice}}</ref>

==== Office of Policy ====
EOIR's Office of Policy (OP), created in 2017, is responsible for communications, data collection, and regulatory review.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/eoir/office-of-policy|title=Office of Policy|date=February 21, 2020|website=U.S. Department of Justice|access-date=2020-02-21}}</ref> Unlike the Office of general counsel, the Office of Policy does not represent EOIR in legal proceedings; it provides training and instructions to effectuate the policy of the director.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-08-26/pdf/2019-18196.pdf|title=Organization of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (84 Fed. Reg. 44,538)|date=August 26, 2019|website=Federal Register|access-date=2020-02-21}}</ref>

== Criticism and controversies ==
The [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]]'s use of precedent decisions has been subject to criticism.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last=Marouf|first=Fatma|date=January 2019|title=2019|url=https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/1316/|journal=Tulane Law Review|volume=93|issue=4|pages=707, 741–42}}</ref> Some commentators have argued that the use of the power, instead of settling doctrine, has departed from agency procedures and practices, adjudicated issues not relevant to a particular case, and disrupted the development of circuit law by adopting the minority view.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Shah|first=Bijal|date=2017|title=The Attorney General's Disruptive Immigration Power|url=https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/online/volume-102/the-attorney-generals-disruptive-immigration-power/|journal=Iowa Law Review|volume=102|pages=129, 154}}</ref>  

EOIR has also been criticized for the significant backlog of immigration cases; as of December 2020, there are more than 1.2 million pending cases across the immigration courts.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/|title=Immigration Court Backlog Tool: Pending Cases and Length of Wait in Immigration Courts|website=trac.syr.edu |publisher=[[Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse]] |access-date=2021-01-27}}</ref> In 2018, the Department of Justice instituted case quotas for immigration judges, requiring each to complete 700 cases per year, a rate requiring each IJ to close more than two cases per day.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/2018/04/03/599158232/justice-department-rolls-out-quotas-for-immigration-judges|title=Justice Department Rolls Out Quotas For Immigration Judges|website=NPR.org|language=en|access-date=2020-03-30}}</ref> The president of the [https://www.naij-usa.org/ National Association of Immigration Judges], stated that the policy was an "unprecedented act which compromises the integrity of the court."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-judges-idUSKCN1M12LZ|title=Head of U.S. immigration judges' union denounces Trump quota plan|date=2018-09-21|work=Reuters|access-date=2020-03-30|language=en}}</ref>

In February 2024 Bloomberg Law News reports the Department of Justice paid 1.2 million dollars to resolve a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment by an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge.<ref>news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/judges-staffer-accepts-1-2-million-to-end-sex-harassment-suit</ref> This follows findings by the [[United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General]] in March 2022, September 2023 and January 2024 of Immigration Judges who violated the Departments zero tolerance policy on sexual harassment and the ethical rules applicable to Immigration Judges. 

In January 2021, the [[San Francisco Chronicle]] reported that the Executive Office for Immigration Review had failed to prevent or appropriately respond to multiple instances of sexual harassment by judges and supervisors.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Sexually-inappropriate-behavior-runs-rife-in-15889003.php|title=Bad conduct, leering 'jokes' — immigration judges stay on bench|date=2021-01-22|work=San Francisco Chronicle|access-date=2021-01-27|language=en}}</ref> [[Tal Kopan]], the reporter who broke the story, added later in an interview that more allegations not included in the story indicated that the problem was widespread and not an isolated occurrence.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.radio.com/kcbsradio/podcasts/kcbs-on-demand-20757/new-report-sheds-light-into-sexual-harassment-occurring-in-the-immigration-court-system-355361456|title=New report sheds light into sexual harassment occurring in the immigration court system|date=2021-01-24|work=KCBS Radio|access-date=2021-01-27|language=en}}</ref>

A November 2019 report by the [[United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General]] found that "senior managers" involved in the hiring of Immigration Judges had used a system of "code words" to rate "the attractiveness" of female candidates.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2020/06/16/FOIA_Request_20-OIG-143.pdf#page=14|title=An Investigation of Alleged Misconduct|date=2019-11-01|access-date=2021-01-27|language=en}}</ref> The report also found that this conduct "could give rise to claims of sexual harassment or claims of prohibited personnel practices."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2020/06/16/FOIA_Request_20-OIG-143.pdf#page=17|title=An Investigation of Alleged Misconduct|date=2019-11-01|access-date=2021-01-27|language=en}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations]]
* [[United States Citizenship and Immigration Services|U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services]] (USCIS)
* [[U.S. Customs and Border Protection]] (CBP)
* [[U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement]] (ICE)
*[[Board of Immigration Appeals]]
*[[National Association of Immigration Judges]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
* {{official|https://www.justice.gov/eoir}}
* [https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/executive-office-for-immigration-review Executive Office for Immigration Review] in the [[Federal Register]]
* [https://www.justice.gov/eoir/eoir-immigration-court-listing List of Immigration Courts]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS4SIQSLEeI Center for Immigration Studies Immigration Newsmaker: A Conversation with EOIR Director James McHenry] May 3, 2018
*[https://twitter.com/DOJ_EOIR Twitter Feed]

{{DOJ agencies}}
{{authority control}}

[[Category:United States Department of Justice agencies]]
[[Category:Administrative courts]]
[[Category:United States tribunals]]
[[Category:Immigration to the United States]]