what they call the unitary that the president can fire anybody, we wouldn't have the-- >> if there was any news made it's perhaps the suggestion that rosenstein could be fired because he's-- ments i didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth. i said that rosenstein is not in the same category of mueller because he has a conflict, a conflict. >> and to fire mueller or rosenstein would be a massive assault on the rule of civil law and justice in america. >> unfortunately, we're out of time. congressman jamie raskin is a democrat, a member of the judiciary committee and victorian toensing is a law partner with her husband and a reagan justice official. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having us. >> and live this morning,

c-span2 is at the national press club in washington d.c. for a discussion about immigration and a reported backlog of cases which reportedly doubled from 2006. >> government and immigration policy makers to discuss the priorities as well as challenges that they states enforcing the immigration laws of the united states. we are honored to have as our first immigration news maker james mchenry, director for immigration review, also known as eyor. and mr. mchenry was the next of the office. he was hired in the attorneys honors program in 2003. later served in the office of the principal office as chief counsel and later as an

attorney where he was for assistant attorney, anti-trafficking operation and work site enforcement matters and served as a special assistant united states attorney for the criminal division at the u.s. attorney's office for the northern district of georgia. from 2014 to 2016 director mchenry served as an at administrator law judge and director mchenry has truly rejoined the agency at a time in their history and eyor has long been a neglected and forgotten agency underfund you had throughout the government. attorney general jeff sessions announced it will be a priority they will be properly funded and properly led and director mchenry is the first fruits of

that effort. so, i would ask you to join me in welcoming director james mchenry today. [applaus [applause]. >> thank you. i'm going to ask director mchenry a series of questions and we will begin with the most important one. may 30th, 2017, attorney general jeff sessions announced you would be named the director of eyor. this isn't your first term in the office, as i mentioned by introduction. why don't you start telling us about eyor what they do and what the responsibilities are. >> happy to. eyor sort of has been my home for a lot of my professional career. as art mentioned, this is my third stint with eyor from a law clerk and administrative director. and they are ajudeacatory.

we have nationwide roughly 60 immigration courts currently and 3400 immigration judges and they hear thousands and thousands of cases every year. and the second component either period of time can appeal a decision by the administrative judge and we have is a board members authorized for 21, hearing 15 to 20,000 appeals per year. the third component is a unique component. it's one people know the least about. the office of the chief administrative hearing officer which is sort of cumbersome name and we call it by an acronym. they hear principally three

types of cases, these are premised on illegal and unlawful hiring practices and maintain certain paper work to confirm that individuals are lawfully allowed to work and the second category, discrimination, unemployment discrimination in particular. if someone in certain circumstances feels they've been discriminated against, they can bring a certain type of case. and the third category, fraud cases, they don't see too many of those anymore, but it's part of their jurisdiction. >> just to talk about that very briefly, the procedures, the rules that govern the immigration courts are very different, correct? >> the rules, some are set by immigration and by design the immigration courts are informal, federal rules of civil procedure don't apply in the immigration courts.

they're designed to bring out certain information. a lot of these are modeled off the federal rules of civil procedures. they have a lot of civil procedure options such as summary decision, you have discovery, things like that, they are quite different. >> you've mentioned before that you have jurisdiction over both the immigration courts and the board of immigration appeals who review their decisions. you have jurisdiction over the al j's, but you also have jurisdiction over the kho, the chief administrative hearing officer who is a reviewing body for those. how do you balance the responsibilities without infringing on the independence of each of the bodies? >> there are a couple of responses and i don't want to make it sound as if it's easy to do, but in effect, it is. our judges are administrative judges, board of appeals members. they exercise independent judgment and discretion. we're not reaching down and talking to judges or telling them how to rule will in this case and that case.

the regulations clearly spell out their independence and the same is the independence in the decision making based on evidence and facts that come before them. as a practical matter we have hundreds of thousands of cases pending. there's no way even if it weren't prohibited there's no way that we could practically reach down to every single case. my job at my level is essentially to try to manage the workload. manage the docket. make sure that judges are exercising their full capacity. adjudicating as many cases as they can comfortably, consistently with due process and making sure that nothing is slipping through the cracks. >> sound like a pretty big job. what are the biggest issues that were facing you when you took over as director of eoir. . >> the backlog, the number has gone up, tripled since about 2009. it's doubled since about 2012.

and it's going up. we're trying to get a handle on it and making progress, but there's much more work to be done. the second issue is immigration judge hiring. there were several reports, including one that came out just after i got back to eoir. criticizing how long it takes for us to hire immigration judges. it was taking us 742 days on average, two years, almost two and a half years and we have been table to get that number one closer to more like the 10 to 12 month mark. there's room for improvement, but we're working on it and the third. eoir, i don't know if we're among the last agencies, but one of the last in the federal government. and we're one of the few in that use paper files and we identified the need for electronic filing and records in 2001, there hasn't been a lot of progress made until last year, but that's been almost a top priority for us is to finally push through and i'm

happy to say that we're prepared to start piloting electronic filing, you know, electronic case records in five or six courts this summer with hopefully a nationwide rollout next year. >> when you pilot that, will those just be motions? will they be applications or are you still in the-- in the planning stages for that? >> the idea right now is electronic filing across the board. so, motions, evidence, applications, whatever there is, the ultimate desire, the ultimate goal is to create an electronic record of proceedings. it makes it easier for the judges to look at while they're conducting a hearing, makes it easier for the law clerks later on if they need to review something to help write a decision, easier for the public to file more at their convenience than to have to go down to the actual window and file it. >> let's talk about records proceedings. that states that the actual record at that sits in front of the immigration judge. >> right, yes, it's a blue paper folder that has the fi

filin filings, and the notice and documents of the case. >> we know from past experience, i can remember famously, more than a decade ago, doris meissner said they had lost 80,000 in a year and i assume the records of the proceedings also get loss? >> i can't speak. doris was from ins and they have administrative files and i can't speak to their filing practices. we try to maintain pretty good control over ours. >> still, it's a cumbersome method. >> this he take up space we to use for judges, additional personnel and they pile up and sometimes we send them to the federal record center and we have to keep them on site at the courts. they pile up, take space, space on people's desks, it does interfere with, would work more than the justices reviewing it.

>> you have a process which you record the hearings? >> we switched to a digital audio recording system six or seven years ago so everything has always been recorded, but it used to be on cassette tapes and i don't know if anybody remembers cassettes, but that was the preeminent technological innovation in the last ten years. >> not only cassette tapes, but six track cassette tapes you couldn't play without it sounding on mickey mouse on helium, very important. have you found that's helped to expedite the completion of cases and give you better control of the cases? >> immensely. when i started and first came to eoir as a law clerk when they were on cassettes and the judge would give me a decision, go back get the cassette tapes and if there was a big file, six, seven, eight, ten tapes and start to listening to them

and changing the settings of the machine and the microphone with the different tracks. now days it's digitally recorded and pull it up through the computer system and makes it a lot easier. i don't know that it affects the hearing because it's still recorded at the same time, but it certainly makes it easier for the judges and law clerks to make decisions afterwards and review testimony or anything they need to. >> let's go to that for just a moment. you're familiar with the vtc or video teleconferencing system that they have. back in the days of the cassette tapes, do you remember what they used to have to do? where they would put the microphone in front of the television in order to actually pick up the --. >> there have been a number of issues with vtc when it was first implemented. it was a new technology in the early 2000's. and there were some growing pains. it's very difficult to pick up with a cassette recorder and people in different parts of the courtroom to get it

recorded when you're getting a video feed. but the digital was solved the problem and there have been significant upgrades in the vtc he can technology and we haven't had significant problems in several years. >> this is an improvement. >> yes. >> and gives you more control over transcripts and case system itself. >> moving forward to the future it's something we are exploring to do to do almost a real time transcription and there are software and programs out there, something kind of the next generation. right now we're focused on getting the electronic filing and electronic records, that's our first big step, but after that there's no reason we can't move on to, again, real-time transcription or a sort of immediate processing of cases. >> before we move off of the electronic ro p's, what benefits do you see there being from being electronic ro p's and what problems with the paper ones? >> there will several benefits,

it's something that everybody support it makes it easier for private practitioners and representatives to file and makes it easier for the government to file and easier for the respondents and attorneys on both sides to check on the file and check what's in the file. right now if you want to see an rop you have to come down to the court and fill out paper work and you can get it, but may not have to are a long period of time. it's tough to get copies of things. if it's electronically, you can do that instantaneously. for the judges, it will be a lot easier to look at a pdf or some type of file like that and scroll to the pages they need when reviewing a file. they can make marks or notations on the particular pages they need. right now if any of you have ever been in immigration court you'll inevitably see a judge flipping through reames and reames of papers trying to find one specific page that they need to ask a question about or see a file annotated with 30 or 40 sticky notes and the judge is trying to figure out what does this mean or do?

with electronic filing they can do all of this in advance and make notes on the file and call it up how we organize it. and should be helpful to everybody involved, especially the judges. and some of the ro p's are big, right? >> some around for a while. they're not just one rop, you have to get a document, a second, third, fourth, eventually talking about a stack that's two or three feet high. if all of that is stored electronically, one we don't need the space and two, easier to focus on what documents you need to focus on for the upcoming hearing. >> when i was a judge i probably cost the department of justice my salary again in sticky notes so i would greatly appreciate that plus the paper cuts would probably be lower with the electronic system. >> we'll send you a bill. [laughter] >> too late now. let's go back to something you mentioned before. according to the transitional records clearinghouse at syracuse university through

march much 2018 there were 692,298 cases pending at the immigration court. is that an accurate reflection of the dockets? >> we don't comment on third party data views. it's in the ballpark. it's in the low 690's right now. >> now, in addition to that low 690's, there are also cases that are administratively closed. could you explain administrative closure to us? >> sure, administrative closure was designed to be a temporary move to remove the case from the active pending docket while something else was going on. it first came about when individuals were granted temporary protected status or temporary status and once that's resolved or terminated and ends, then the case is recalendared and continues. and it's sort of been expanded in different directions over the years and the judges were given more latitude how they use it starting in 2012.

with that expansion it's caused an increase in the number of cases that are administratively closed. they're technically pending on the docket, they're just not active on the docket. right now at the court level they're roughly 330,000. >> so that 330,000 cases, that are administratively closed would that be included in the low 690's or is that in addition to the those cases? >> it would be in addition to those cases. the 690 number are the number of active pending cases and those are ones that are currently on the docket we're attempt to go move through. >> so we're actually talking about more like 1.2 million possible cases that could be on immigration judge's dockets? >> math is not my strong suit so i don't know. but there's a possibility of additional cases. >> okay, the primary mission at eoir is to adjudicate cases, this is your website, by fairly expeditiously and unformally and administering the

immigration law. frankly low 690,000 cases in addition to however many administratively closed cases seems like an overwhelming caseload for 334 immigration judges as you referenced before. what steps have you taken or do you plan to take to ensure that those cases are fairly and expeditiously heard in accordance with the agents? we've outlined steps we plan to take over the past six to seven months. the first or sort of the most obvious and that's hiring more immigration judges. we've hired 56 immigration judges in the past year and a half and five advertisements for up tole 4 additional positions and we're looking at bringing on probably four more this month and then a large group hopefully this summer. we anticipate by the end of the fiscal year at least up to 40 to 50 that we can bring on board. each of the judges increases our judge's ajudeacatory

capacity. we could get enough judges to turn around the background, but it would take a long time. the judges is a way to deal with the caseload. the second way to deal with it, increasing our existing capacity. we've working on capacities and courtrooms used. and working on bringing back retired immigration judges to hear cases and sort of shifting resources around. some courts have lower capacity or have excess capacity so they can hear cases from other locations and it's relatively easy to do with vtc. third, we're changing the infrastructure and that's primarily moving to an electronic based system that's going to make it faster and easier for the judges to get through cases. we're working with partners, it's primarily a department of homeland security and they have their own sort of case completion issues and have their own priorities and working with them to make sure

that we don't get swamped out caught up in something that they're going to do and sort of a top to bot to many-- bottom review inside, every process that we have has been subject to a strict review. we're looking for ways to be more efficient. and the two are not mutually exclusive. we feel we can take as many steps as we can to make sure that that's going to happen. >> as i mentioned and you mentioned, presently about 334 immigration judges around the country. and attorney general sessions has indicated as he stated he wants to hire more immigration judges to handle the caseload. how many immigration judges do you believe are necessary in order to address the pending caseload and the future caseload of the immigration courts, if you have an opinion? >> as i mentioned a moment ago, having more judges is obviously important, but it's not by

itself a decisin efficient. if you look solely the a the numbers. the omnibus bill that congress passed authorized ut to hire 484, up additional 15 from where we are current-- it's up 150 from where we are now and that should start so many reduction. last fall the president proposed a putting that would bring us up to 700. if we got to that level there would be a significant reduction in the backlog even as we get to that level, it wouldn't be for two or three years and until then, until work get more judges on board. >> as a former judge i know i couldn't do the job by myself. who are the other people you would have to hire to support those judges. >> when we hire an immigration judge, it's not the judge him or herself, it's a team.

support staff and interpreters and attorneys or law clerks. we're trying to move so ultimately each judge can have his or hadder own law clerk. we're looking for a one-to-one ratio, but we're not there yet. on the next fiscal year, october 1st, we will have roughly 270 or so law clerks or attorney advisors on board. it's not quite one-to-one, but we're moving in that direction and i think all the judges would agree that having a good law clerk and a dedicated law clerk is indispensible. >> for people who aren't familiar with the system, what do law clerks do? >> everything you would expect a judge's law clerk to do, they do research, draft opinions, memos, whatever the judge asks them to do. >> i was a law clerk for a couple of years myself and my duties ran the gamut. my second year as a law clerk, i was one clerk for ten

immigration judges and you know, i am ooh, each judge, i tried to give my best effort and dedicate myself as much as possible, but ten to one is not really a viable rash she for judges and that's the reason that we're trying to get it down to one-to-one as close as we can. >> and how many immigration judges did you say that eoir plans to hire by the end of the fiscal year. >> we hope to by the end of the fiscal year 48. we've issued five advertisements in the past year for 84 positions as we opened up another, we are not going to get to 84 by the end of the year, but perhaps the calendar year, 2019. >> let me pull back the curtain for just a moment. let me ask you, while we're talking about hiring immigration judges, what is the hiring process for immigration judges? >> it goes through several-- >> for anybody out there who might be looking for a job. >> you go through several steps or stages. the first is the advertisements

posted on usa jobs link like pretty much other jobs and posted yesterday. and also on the website, and office recruitment and management maintains a list. and it's on there typically. ads are usually open for three weeks, people apply and the office of personnel management sort of makes the first cut, their basic qualifications and make sure that people meet those and then the final in the list is forwarded over to the department. within the department, it goes through several levels of reviews and by statute, the immigration judge appointed by the attorney general, at the end once the judge is selected and it's agreed that everybody has been cleared enthis the attorney general will report that problem. >> that pro forma or is jeff sessions looking at the resume's of the various individuals. i can't speak what the attorney

general looks at, but goes through several levels of review before it gets there. >> understood. are these civil service positions? are these political positions? what are they? >> these are sort of regular government employee positions. they're subject to merit principles for hiring, they're mspb protections, once they're on board, they're definitely not political positions, now, they're judges because they have to be appointed and because there are other requirements, they're a little different than sort of the a run of the mill civil service clerk or some type of position like that. but by and large comparable to other government employees. >> can you tell us about some of the requirements for being an immigration judge? what does it take to be an immigration judge? >> typically you need a law degree. you need to be an active member of a bar somewhere and you need seven years of experience. generally, either preparing for or appearing in front of or appealing, you know, trial type or administrative type hearing settings. >> so, we're not talking about people who have seven years

necessarily of immigration experience, but-- ments no, there's no specific immigration experience requirement. we do ask each of the applicants to address there are six technical qualifications, they talk about experience with immigration, they talk about experience with high volume dock kets. they talk about experience with litigation and talk about experience adjudicating cases things like that so we ask the applicants to address those, but those aren't mandatory qualifications. >> okay, so, you have a training list for people who are novices when it comes to immigration? >> yeah, we're actually in the process of expanding that. when someone comes on board, they typically will do training at their home court for a while and come to our headquarters in falls church and get class training, dock dockets, best practices for handle cases and specific issues and typically do more training and ultimately all in all end up with two

month's worth of training to before they're ready to take the bench themselves and they usually have mentor judges and we follow them and make sure that they're doing what they need to be doing and if they have any issues. >> there's a fairly close eye on new judges to make sure that everything is working out all right? >> we need judges so significantly right now and we depend on them so much it wouldn't make any sense for us to sort of throw them in the pool and tell them they've got to sink or swim. we've got to give the training they need. >> unlike when you and i were a trial attorney, here is your file, go into court. >> the government of accountability, immigration judge hiring is an issue for eoir. you know the report, 2017 gao report, concluded dook the doj on average, i think you said,

over 700 days to complete each immigration judge's hiring process. what steps are they taking to hire judges more quickly? >> this you will actually began before i came back to eoir. the attorney general in april of 2017 announced a streamlined hiring process to address this issue. and the process itself doesn't really change, but the key thing that was different is that it actually imposed deadlines. the old process had been in place since 2007 had no real deadline, so, and people moved through the process, but there wasn't necessarily a push for it. and something as simple as imposing deadlines for each of the components to review has actually had a significant impact. since that time the first ad i put out since i came back, closed in june of 2017 and we anticipated bringing on an um couple of judges from the ad itself and gets us to about ten

months. we anticipate bringing on the rest in july which would be right out a beginning of july, put us at about a year. so we've been able to, so far, reduce the hiring time from 742 days to 365 or less, so it's about 50%. >> so you're telling me part of that 742 days were because files were sitting on people's desks? >> i don't know if files were sitting on people's desks, but deadlines make a difference. >> and you have indicated that's a priority for you and for the attorney general. >> yeah, hiring is certainly a priority as i mentioned before we need to get additional judges, we're authorized for 150 more than we actually have. every judge that we get on board increases our process and every judge on board is a weapon against the backlog so we have a strong interest in getting them on as quickly as possible. it does us no good if we have to wait two and a half years to get a judge on board. >> i assume you probably have

individuals who are good candidates who find something else to do in the interim? >> we have people to decline offers and we have circumstances that change. >> two years is awful long time to wait. >> i agree with that. >> and a long time to put your life on hold if you have to move halfway across the country. ...

and it does precisely what it says. we didn't necessarily have any kind of central coordination system as something came from her office of general counsel, some from immigration courts, some from the board of immigration guilt, but there wasn't a central quarterbacking entity to help develop those policies and two, to make sure they were consistent across all the components and that's at the office of policy, one of its functions is set up for, to make sure we have coordinated policies across oliver adjudicatory bodies. it's also going to take the lead on developing regulations and it's taking a significant lead on her training. previously each of the individual components conducted their own training and even though most of them are training on the same body of immigration law, they still sort of have their own training ideas could policy we can make sure the training is consistent and uniform across all the bodies. it is sort of help does focus

resources on areas we need. >> would you mind discussing the components at this time? >> in one sense. >> how does it work, how does it go? is it annual? >> multiple types of training. certain training is required by law. the antidiscrimination training is done on an annual basis. a lot of that is computer delivered at this point but we have some variations of it appeared training related to certain issues, but in different cases. there's an training dealing with mental competency issues, for example appeared training resources assertive issue specific training. we also try and if not always been successful to have some annual training event and it's had its own annual training event as well and it's more or less the same body of law.

sometime the training in the past has been in-person conferences is sometimes delivered by cds. last year it was not in person, but this year we do anticipate having an immigration judge conference or training event for everyone will be together. >> is there any advantage between computer-based training and in-person training? >> would have to weigh the pros and cons in the trade-offs. we are getting such a large immigration accord that a certain point it gets too big for in-person training to be as effective as it could be. it's also a cost issue when you bring four, 500 people together and we also have to be sensitive to. everyone on a certain level seems to prefer a in-person training but logistically it becomes more difficult. secondly with computerized training, individuals can sort of take the lessons i learn at their own speed, the runtime.

training method when you bring people to conferences some people i respect receptive to that and some people are not. so we've worked with both methods and will probably end up moving to changing how we deliver regardless of the size. >> to training generally takes place in person washington d.c. >> somewhere in the northern virginia area. >> have you thought about that a centralized location, omaha, somewhere cheaper? >> we've talked about going forward. the number of judges that we have come in the number people would bring together we may have to divide the training up and we've made no commitment or no definitive decisions is perhaps doing a training base on regions. we wouldn't necessarily bring them all to omaha police might bring them for the essential united states are certain federal circuits together in one

location. >> you mention training on individual cases in one of those things that a few bright judges from certain regions together, unfortunately we don't have a uniform system of immigration law because we have 11 different work record to make decisions. could you talk about the training you have for individual decisions from this 11th circuit courts? >> that is something our policy office has done an outstanding job on so far is they compile each week on new circuit court case decisions that relate to immigration law could they compile a new policy they compile new policies from other agencies to relate to immigration law in supreme court cases, class-action decision, anything of interest or potential relevant that they may need to know. they compile and send it to the judges on a weekly basis. they have real-time information

on cases, policies, things that come out. a lot of judges keep up with the news and do their own work. as quickly as possible. for example a supreme court decision a couple weeks ago we were able to get the judges the same day sort of explaining the decision went going on. by creating the policy office, we essentially made it easier to deliver to the judge's legal updates and things that we need as quickly as possible. the time you get to a training conference come a lot of a lot of cases or six months, eight months old, the judges don't necessarily need to have been repeated, but this way we give them the information they need as soon as possible. >> this is a real issue for the judges against g8 out even mention its report that because

there's been such a shift in the law, it is difficult for the judges to apply that new law. this sounds like one of the ways we are going to put the judges in a better position to do that. >> it is incumbent on us to make sure judges have this up-to-date information as possible especially with the law and the new circuit court decisions practically every week with new regulations coming out. judges look for themselves. they have the law clerks do it. some of the components have their own subdivisions. this way we make sure we get it out in a timely manner. >> any big regulatory changes you see coming down the pipe or is it too early to talk about that? >> is really at this point. we've had a lot of regulations on different agendas over the years that are still pending out there and we are doing an overall retrospect of review. i guess the most recent one we did is increasing the size of the board. i'm trying to think that there's anything else reset. nothing comes to mind.

>> immigration judge productivity has declined in recent years from 1356 case completions per judge in fy 2006 to 807 case completions in fy 2015. what are the reasons, that you believe exist for this decline? >> i'm not sure we can pinpoint sort of one central reason best determinative overall. the same report that quoted the statistics talk about continuing citizen continuances are definitely up. but it's also to some extent a byproduct of the hiring freeze. read fewer immigration judges coming on board to handle the new cases pending in. we had to take cases then we could. there were some documenting shifts and priority changes, three or four of those in a two-year span were cases got moved around on the dockets

which didn't necessarily increase efficiency. some cases have come more complex than courts have developed this approach, the categorical approach, the modified categorical approach that you almost have to do sort of a metaphysical break down of criminal statutes to make a determination as to whether it's a ground of removal or not. those have taken up more time. we had a sharp kick in the number of asylum cases. they typically take a little bit more -- a little bit longer. its combination of all those factors. i don't know if we can sort it pinpoint one factor. >> you mentioned a hiring freeze in the past. that's why we only have those immigrations. i don't want you to opine about the opinions for your predecessor's actions. >> i really don't know. it was that the at the time.

>> okay. what can be done to increase the number of case completions per judge consistent with the process? >> we are looking at a couple things. the first is obviously resources. we need to make sure the judges are trained and we are working on that. we need to make sure the judges have law clerks are sufficient legal courses and we talked about that, too. we're improving the dissemination of timely legal information and was alluded before we switched electronic files and we should be a litigating to the case to help prepare for and understand what's going on at the hearing and that should make it ultimately easier for them to make a determination. now we are also looking at other ways to streamline the process, encouraging judges and talking to them about auto maxx that they see other sort of procedural issues, but those are the main things we think can help improve immigration judge

productivity. >> you're getting feedback at the same time. let's talk for a moment about the performance standards for immigration judges. it was recently reported you were planning set a quota of 700 cases per year for immigration judges for each immigration judge to complete. are there performance standards for immigration judges? >> at this point most people are probably a foyer the e-mail going out towards the end of march. we do intend to implement performance measures, numeric performance measures. it's important to clarify immigration judges have been subject to performance evaluations for a number of years. i don't know if they were in place when you were a judge, but it's not a new concept or a new idea to evaluate the judges. the new part is having sorted numeric standards. anything from an objective and if you're an employee being a value weighted, it helps you understand what you need to do to get a certain level of performance.

we are trying to make it more transparent, more objective to have a better understanding of what they need to do. >> what happens if your judge that only has 500 notices to appear each year. how you make 700 cases? >> this is one reason aside from semantics that we don't call it a quota or considered a quota. a quota is a fixed number without any deviation or allowance or room for deviation. but when we evaluate the judges based on her measure, there are at least six discrete factors we take into consideration and also a catchall. before we come to a final evaluation if for some reason is not completed the number of cases we think is appropriate. we look at the overall context so we are not again they not

again a respectable number. it's not quite as concrete or rigid as perhaps it's been portrayed. factors made beyond the judges control and that all goes into account for the evaluation. >> it hasn't been that long since i was an immigration judge. we did have performance standards are needed to meet demeanor and various other competency requirements were part of that. but with respect to the number of cases that a judge has to complete per year or ideally will be completed, will there be feedback on that? will you guys take a look at those numbers come a determine whether that's the right number? >> right now, the measures are scheduled to go into effect until the end of the next fiscal year, october. we've got training coming up for the judges, so how it's going to be rolled out a subject to change between now and then. we want the judges to be aware of the numbers to help make it more comfortable and

understanding where we are coming from. in terms of feedback, we are working on essentially electronic dashboard system so the judges can call up your own caseload, their number is updated on a daily basis and see where they stack up. other agencies use similar systems and we are going to make sure the judges have enough feedback, enough information so they know kind of where they stand and maybe some potential issues. >> what could be the implications of one fails to meet these standards? is an opportunity for additional training? do you identify people who need more help? >> it's going to be fact specific and based on a situation. it could be a training issue, resource issue. it could be something his out for a while for some reason. it could be going on detail. a number of factors might go

into it and we don't have sort of a once size fits all of how we are going to make a decision. we will look at it and see what the actual underlying issue is an address whether it's training resources or something else. >> i anticipate this will be a feedback loop were you looking at these numbers and performance to see what the agency needs, correct? >> definitely. one of the driving forces behind it is for us to understand better immigration judge part of the day. we are going to see what the metrics stack up it will definitely get feedback. we are already getting feedback to some degree and we will evaluate on an ongoing basis. >> you think this is a reasonable number or about right? this is a reasonable number that a judge, an experienced judge with proper training can reasonably be expected to complete. it's in line with historic averages. the productivity numbers you

quoted earlier is a little bit lower than not. it's a reasonable number that the judges should be expected everything else being equal should be expected to meet. >> when he pointed at me for a moment i thought you would talk about my own performance. there's the retroactive aspect. anyway, there's also purportedly a requirement that immigration judges have a read and rate them at the rate of cases returned by the appellate court to the immigration court because of some error in the decision of 15% or less. can you explain that? >> something else we want to look at in terms of judging quality is not just the number of cases, but also how many cases are coming back. not only is it equality in the form of tissue, but also an issue for the backlog cases remanded to the larger the backlog is going to grow with the more time is taken away from handling new cases. 15% is again a policy judgment used by other agencies.

when you break it down by the numbers, it actually makes some intuitive sense. we are asking judges to complete 700 cases a 10% of that is about 105 that it works out roughly to 107 cases. in our estimation if you have a judge being remanded who has had errors in cases coming back more than one out of every seven cases probably something we need to take a look at. it doesn't necessarily mean it's always the judges fall. there may be something on the appellate site that we need to take a look at as well. we see that as sort of like a trigger warning or a red flag. if we see a judge who is having every seven for every sixth case come back to him or her, we want to take a look and find out and drill down. >> a feedback loop will exist. how do you see improving the performance of immigration judges? >> a couple ways. it gets sorted active measures with the judges and other performance needs to be or

should be. the prior performance evaluation, the factors are not as well defined. but your clear numbers, check the numbers and measures. it makes it easier to understand what they need to be doing. secondly, it will increase feedback. it will increase discussions between judges and supervisors such as monitoring numbers are there should be a positive synergistic effect from going back and forth and discussing these back-and-forth. it will help supervisors identify where issues are coming training resources or someone else and they may get a different day. they see a certain type of case causing problems for certain particular docket issue causing problems as well. the more interaction, the more feedback there is, the better off they'll be. >> since january, they've taken a number of cases on certification. can you explain the process for people not familiar? >> certification process in the

regulations has been around for many years of these going back to the 1950s. under the immigration law, the attorney general has sort of controlling authority to issue determinations of law. so come in the attorney general can refer cases to himself or make decisions in individual cases. they can be referred to him by one of three ways. first he can refer case or direct you to be refer to him or herself personally. secondly the chairman of the board of immigration appeals can refer a case to the attorney general. and third comes certain officials of the department of homeland security can request that it be deferred to the attorney general. they come up in one of those three manners. >> why can't the aliens seek certification? >> good question. i don't know the answer. this has been around since the late 50s. this is what was implemented then. >> so there is actually an appellate right from a decision of the board of immigration for

proceedings, correct? >> not administratively. to play this file petition the ghost of the circuit court of appeals over with the immigration cases heard. >> the government doesn't have that right, correct? >> not in the current statutory scheme. >> basically this is the method by which if life determines that the director determines that a case deserves more review you can see that review for the attorney general, correct? >> i would be one method. they're a couple of quirks to it. dhs has used in the past had one possibility. >> finally come to you and i are both familiar as a result of individual service at the office. you've been there three times. i've been there two times so you've got one up. were there any surprises for you about that office when you begin your work as a director?

>> i wouldn't say surprises. one of the more interesting challenges to it however when i came back, i've been there three times. a lot of it senior staff and more experienced people are what we call your lifers. a lot of the same leadership team for many years and they have a lot of his traditional knowledge, a lot of experience we need to draw on. it's also important to balance that with new ideas and sort of bringing in people who have not spent their entire careers in new york. we're trying to balance the new ideas, new blood type thing with the people who have gone through changes in the past. this gone through difference in the system. they've gone through a people centered sort of balance their experience, their institutional knowledge, their ideas of what works and doesn't work with new ideas we want to try to work on the backlog, work on hiring and things like that is the most

interesting and the most unique aspects so far. >> next will take some questioners from the audience. there have been reports of a revolt over the push for strict enforcement of faster processing under the terms administration. how are you dealing with that? i don't know that i would say there's a revolt. obviously there are individuals who disagree with some of the measures be taken. there are arguments on both sides, but we are working with the judges. we are working with the union in fulfilling our obligations. >> there have been news reports the terms administration may be residing from the interior to the border to respond to a recent spike in apprehension. don't these reassignments make the backlog that she described worse? >> we ran the numbers last year when they were judges reassigned.

we actually found the judges completed i believe 2700 more cases than we would've asked i could than to have completed. so statistically at least based on the numbers are not sure that's actually true. >> they are getting more cases than when they are assigned? >> reran analysis of the immigration judge search last year. >> you believe uris properly located within the executive branch? >> part of the department of justice since 1940. it's part of the federal agencies going back to the late 1800s for the department of justice gives us resources, leverage and leadership that we might not get when they were located somewhere else. a number of proposals to try to move them, but i'm not sure all those proposals have sort of reckon with the consequent is. so yeah, we do feel it's best located where it's been since 1940 and that's the case. >> you may have answered this question but just to give you the opportunity, how do you

respond to those who contend the cases should be handled by article iii courts? >> i don't know that anyone's can hold it to answer that question. i'd have to defer to them. i don't know that the article iii judges right now would be equipped to take on the new cases. >> wide hives asylums 20 years ago in some people's handwriting is a bit sloppier than others. they took the newest cases first. our immigration courts not taking the oldest cases first? >> again, we're sort of competing in trying to balance two different injuries. we change docketing strategies and priorities three or four times since 2014. it's not clear that those led to efficiencies. by the same token we are trying to make sure we have a number of cases pending for a long time. we are trying to make sure it doesn't benefit anyone to wait long for the decision weather is favorable to respond in favor of the government.

it does nobody any any good, so we're trying to make sure the cases are pending too long without it the same time churning cases on the docket but the overall education is efficient. >> this is a question you're still looking now. should they start with the newest for the oldest cases? >> i want to repeat the answer i just gave. if you prioritize one set of cases over another, i'm not sure if it will be the most efficient way. we are looking on our processes and creating specialized targets are focusing on particular types of cases that can be handled in an expeditious manner. i'm not sure if it's a black-and-white big picture thing that we can do the longest cases are the shortest cases will be the most efficient. >> not in the same way that i understand you sis is trying to

implement, but we are trying to implement. >> you alluded to this before. the supreme court issue the huge shift in immigration law for those of you not familiar, the name of the case of multi-team -- 16 v., the crime of violence. we won't get into that. but how is that case another decisions for lower courts affect product entity of the immigration court? >> i mentioned this before little bit. it's not so much demise per se because they dealt with the constitutional vagueness issue. other court decisions as categorical in the modified categorical approach of alluded to have created a great deal of confusion. the fed board members, judges, federal circuit court judges have expressed the same sentiment that there is a lot of crimes that seem intuitively or from a commonsense gave to me definitions.

a category for robbery in immigration will find not a robbery offense. they are not crimes of violence. it has caused confusion, consternation and frustration. when you have that frustration with lead-in efficiency. in measurable impact certainly has some impact on the case is pending. >> having been an executive branch god, having been the legislative branch guy, i know you're probably not going to answer this, but can you think of any fixes congress can make that might make this a little bit better? >> when i testified a couple weeks ago i got a similar question. were happy and works with him very well. were happy to take up any ideas or suggestions we have. >> good answer. would it really be possible to work through the court backlog

of 1 million plus cases? >> it's an open-ended question because you didn't give a timeframe. within a year? no. if we make the process improvements have talked about to get the judges hired in a timely fashion. we look through our own procedures. ultimately yes. i can give a definitive timetable, but we don't consider it intractable or unsolvable problem. >> when they wrap up with this question because i think this is an issue that sort of undergirds the entire backlog. what are the problems with the backlog? why is this problematic? why is it problematic. >> you alluded to your mission statement earlier about fairly uniformly and expeditiously deciding cases. all three of those are important, so we want them to be

fair. we want them comport with due process but we also want them done expeditiously. the two are not mutually exclusive. the longer someone has to wait, they have to wait four years to eat after earlier about putting their lives on hold. the valid claim is also putting her whole life on hold until they get the actual decision. likewise, the government has an interest in making sure individuals subject to removal that the orders are entered swiftly so they can be executed or dealt with however they need to. there's an old saying many of you they know that justice delayed is justice denied and that asserted the issue at this. the longer the cases drag out, additional resource strains, but at the end of the day is simply a matter of justice. >> 642,000 decades. i am going to actually leave it

right there. but i do want to thank you it on a thank you for being the first-ever immigration newsmakers. >> thanks for having me. it was my pleasure. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> if you have the time, one have coffee or something like that. let me know. [inaudible] >> sorry. >> live coverage here on c-span two continue this afternoon with a look at the future of college sports and potential implications of paying athletes. speakers include former college basketball coaches and players. ncaa officials and are thought

experts. we'll take you there live at 12:30 p.m. eastern time. 2:30 eastern today's white house briefing with press secretary sarah sanders. her first briefings at the white house correspondents dinner. c-span this afternoon, deputy attorney general rod rosenstein will give remarks on the rule of law. the first amendment and the mission of the justice department. today at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> president trump granted a one month tariff expansion on imports of steel and aluminum from the european union. the e.u. is made up of 28 member countries who say the u.s. decision prolongs market uncertainty, which is already affecting business decisions. the afl-cio hosted a discussion with international trade asked her at some impact the tariffs could have on national security and jobs in the u.s. this is an hour.

>> thanks very much. we will go ahead and began. welcome to the afl-cio. thank you for image for coming. my name is the last drake and i work on trade and globalization policy for the afl-cio and are taught by 5 million members. they're excited to introduce today's panel and the really important topics we'll be discussing. talking about policy in washington d.c. can often be extremely frustrating. commentators too often implied the simplistic and frankly incorrect free trade versus protectionist dichotomy and think that they've brilliantly said everything that there is to say on the topic. but they couldn't be more wrong. for instance, intellectual property rules are a critical part of u.s. free trade agreement in trade policy, but they represent a clear deviation from so-called free trade.