What I saw today in Immigration Court

Your correspondent was there this morning, attending a session of immigration court at Ft. Snelling.

Officially named the U.S. Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, Ft. Snelling Immigration Court, the office is located on the ground floor of a federal building near the airport.

Immigration court, despite the name, oversees an administrative process.

The session I attended this morning was the first step in the intake process. You have no doubt heard of the “Notice to Appear” document issued to immigrants encountered at the border.

Notices are issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

And the nature of these proceedings at which “respondents” appear is characterized by the word “removal.” The ultimate outcome for any individual could be their deportation out of the country.

Syracuse University hosts the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), which tracks statistics related to immigration court (among other items). TRAC reports that the court, nationwide, has a current backlog of 3,707,430 cases. The average backlog per judge is 4,500.

Of the total cases, some 1,462,510 involve requests for asylum. TRAC reports that of the 3.7 million case national backlog, 42,135 cases are assigned to the Minnesota branch of the court.

Here is the breakdown by nationality of the Minnesota backlog,

As you can see, Ecuador leads by far in the number of backlogged cases, with 13,197. Latin America represents 8 of the top 10 nations. Here is the next group of countries on the list,

Of the 42,000 backlogged cases in Minnesota, only 167 involve criminal or national security issues. The bulk of this far smaller group are from Mexico, Somalia, Liberia, and Laos.

The nonprofit Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) reported that for Fiscal 2023, nationwide, nearly 160,000 immigrants failed to appear at court hearings, a new annual record. Last year, the New York Post reported that the system is so backlogged that notices are being issued with court dates not scheduled until 2032 (Chicago) and 2035 (Florida), more than a decade away.

The situation here in Minnesota doesn’t seem nearly as dire. Back to this morning at Ft. Snelling.

Immigrants due in court assembled this morning and checked in at a front desk, staffed by a Spanish speaker. They were then seated in a waiting area that extended down the building’s main hallway. From my observation point, I could not tell how many no shows (if any) failed to appear.

Then, a court clerk called names to assemble a group to appear in each courtroom. I observed the early morning session held in courtroom No. 3.

The docket included seven (7) family groups making their first appearance. They took a total of 90 minutes to process, and a Spanish-language interpreter assisted with the proceeding for every group. A woman from DHS appeared via video screen. Her role in the process was unclear.

All the cases were civil, no respondent was represented by a lawyer. As a civil matter, respondents have a right to have counsel present, but no right to a court-appointed lawyer. Each respondent was given information by the court (on pink paper) on how to obtain pro bono representation by local counsel (nonprofits?).

Group 1 was a middle-aged couple currently living in Minneapolis. As with all respondents appearing this morning, the couple was given a next court date of February 6, 2025. As with all respondents, the judge emphasized the importance of the blue change-of-address forms. As with all respondents, the court emphasized the dire consequences flowing from any future failure to appear.

Group 2 included two brothers now living in Eden Prairie.

Group 3 included a couple living in Minneapolis with two small children, aged 3 and 14 months, respectively.

Group 4 included a couple living in Shakopee with one child, aged 8, a third grader this fall. This family was told, based on their unnamed country of origin, they could apply for asylum or for temporary protected status (TPS) or both. They had not yet applied for either but would need to do so before the upcoming one-year anniversary of their arrival at the border last Christmas Day.

These respondents, as did others this morning, inquired about receiving work permits and social security numbers. The court explained that this process is handled exclusively by the USCIS, with no input from the Dept. of Justice.

Group 5 included a minor girl and her nearly two-year-old child. The minor girl informed the court that she herself would be a ninth grader this fall. The girl was accompanied by her adult guardian, an aunt. The aunt and uncle themselves have applied for asylum in a separate case. All four are living in Minneapolis.

The court told the minor girl that she could apply for asylum and/or Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status. She apparently crossed the border last year unaccompanied by any adult.

[It should be noted that, as the morning dragged on, the collective noise made by the small children in the room (crying, screaming) made it difficult to follow proceedings. As a result, I missed some of the detail associated with the next group.]

Group 6 included a young couple with two small children: a kindergartener aged 5 and a younger brother. It was established that this couple had already applied for asylum, but had not yet been fingerprinted, which, apparently, is an integral part of the process.

At this point, the courtroom was cleared of all respondents already processed, leaving only your correspondent and one final group remaining in the gallery.

Group 7 included a couple living in Minneapolis and four (4) children, all daughters: aged 13 (Grade 9), 9 (Grade 5), 5 (Grade K) and a three-year-old.

As with the previous group, this couple has applied for asylum but has yet to be fingerprinted. Small children (under 13) are not fingerprinted.

FRAC reports that for asylum seekers, nationwide over the past decade, two-thirds of applications are approved. In 2024, the approval percentage is closer to 80 percent. Each year, a small percentage of others leave voluntarily.

Asylum seekers in Minnesota have fared less well over the past twelve months, perhaps due to the nature of applications,

Next, I hope to attend court hearings where applications receive final decisions.