The number of  newly filed cases grew about 44 percent, from about 252,000 in fiscal year  2000, to about 363,000 in fiscal year 2005. The number of on-board immigration judges increased by  6 (about 3 percent), from 206 to 212 between fiscal years 2000 and 2005,  while the immigration courts’ caseload increased about 39 percent during  the same period. Our analysis of the immigration courts’ proceedings data shows that while  the courts have achieved success in reducing the number of proceedings  older than 4 years between fiscal year 2003 and December 31, 2005, the  courts did not meet their goal of completing all proceedings more than   3 years old by December 31, 2005 (see table 2). OCIJ Monitors Caseload to Assign Cases to Judges Accordingly, and Uses a Variety of Means to Address Growing Caseload

		OCIJ Monitors Caseload and Assigns Cases to Judges within Courts

OCIJ monitors immigration courts’ caseload to assign cases to judges  within a court. Specifically, OCIJ considers  the number of newly filed cases and cases awaiting adjudication from  prior years, historical data, and the nature of the caseload, such as the type  of cases prevalent in the court and their complexity. According to OCIJ, it primarily  addresses immigration judge staff shortages at immigration courts through  detailing judges from their assigned court to a court in need of assistance. EOIR provided  several reasons for the inconsistency, as follows: (1) the EOIR case  management system is a live data base that is constantly changing as  events occur to immigration cases in the courts; (2) changes occur to the  number of cases awaiting adjudication from one quarter to another when  categories of cases are exempted from the case completion goals, since  once a case is exempted it is no longer included in the reports; (3) cases  double entered by DHS in the automated scheduling system were deleted;  (4) reconciliations were necessary due to changes to date fields to update  cases in the data base; (5) delays in data entry occurred; and (6)  programming errors occurred in the calculation of the data. As a result, we could not replicate the past reports to determine the  accuracy of the case completion goal data. The inconsistencies indicate  that EOIR should maintain appropriate documentation to demonstrate the  accuracy of data reported by EOIR. OCIJ established a Court Evaluation Unit (CEU) to manage the  coordination and operation of the court evaluation program. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Our objectives in this report are to answer the following questions: (1) in  recent years, what has been the trend in immigration courts’ caseload,   (2) how does the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ) assign and  manage immigration court caseload, and (3) how does the Executive  Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)/OCIJ evaluate the immigration  courts’ performance? To address these objectives, we met with officials from the Department of  Justice’s EOIR headquarters to obtain information and documentation on  caseload trends, caseload management, and evaluation of immigration  courts. However, we could not evaluate the reasonableness of EOIR’s  explanations of the inconsistencies or the overall reliability of each of its  quarterly reports because EOIR has changed its criteria for compiling the  reports over time and only maintains documentation on the current set of  queries used to run the reports.
Why GAO Did This Study

Within the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ) is responsible for managing the 53 immigration courts located throughout the United States where over 200 immigration judges adjudicate individual cases involving alleged immigration law violations. This report addresses: (1) in recent years, what has been the trend in immigration courts' caseload; (2) how does OCIJ assign and manage the immigration court caseload; and (3) how does EOIR/OCIJ evaluate the immigration courts' performance? To address these issues, GAO interviewed EOIR officials; reviewed information on caseload trends, caseload management, and court evaluations; and analyzed caseload data, case completion goal data, and OCIJ court evaluation reports.

What GAO Found

From fiscal years 2000 to 2005, despite an increase in the number of immigration judges, the number of new cases filed in immigration courts outpaced cases completed. During this period, while the number of on-board judges increased about 3 percent, the courts' caseload climbed about 39 percent from about 381,000 cases to about 531,000 cases. The number of completed cases increased about 37 percent while newly filed cases grew about 44 percent. EOIR attributes this growth in part to enhanced border enforcement activities. The courts reduced the number of proceedings awaiting adjudication for more than 4 years, but did not meet their goal to complete all proceedings more than 3 years old by December 31, 2005. OCIJ relies primarily on an automated system to assign cases to immigration judges within a court. To balance the judges' caseload, OCIJ considers the number of newly filed cases and cases awaiting adjudication from prior years, historical data, and the type and complexity of cases. To manage its growing caseload, OCIJ, among other means, details judges from their assigned court to a court in need of assistance and uses available technology such as video conferencing. According to OCIJ, if it recognizes a pattern of sustained need, it recommends that EOIR establish a court in a new location. EOIR evaluates the performance of the immigration courts based on the immigration courts' success in meeting case completion goals. GAO's review of EOIR's quarterly reports on these goals identified a recurring inconsistency between reports as well as other inconsistencies. EOIR explained that these inconsistencies were due to a variety of factors, including the exemption of different categories of cases from the goals in different quarters, delays in data entry, and programming errors in the calculation of the data. Because EOIR has changed its criteria for cases covered by these goals and only maintained the queries for its current reporting process, GAO could not replicate past case completion reports to determine their accuracy. The inconsistencies indicate that EOIR should maintain appropriate documentation to demonstrate the reports' accuracy.