oversight

Criminal Aliens: Prison Deportation Hearings Include Opportunities to Contest Deportation

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-05-25.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

     .
                e   United   States       General   Accounting   Office
                    Report to Congressional Reqhesters
GAO

May 1990
                    CRIMINAL ALIENS
                    Prison
                    TT     Deportation
                    nearmgs Include
                                      l




                    Opportunities to
                    Contest Deportation




GAO/GGD-90-79
GAO   United States
      General Accounting  Office
      Washington, D.C. 20648

      General Government    Division

      B-232893

      May 25,199O

      The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
      Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
      United States Senate

      The Honorable Strom Thurmond
      Ranking Minority Member
      Committee on the Judiciary
      United States Senate

      The Honorable Jack Brooks
      Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
      House of Representatives

      The Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr.
      Ranking Minority Member
      Committee on the Judiciary
      House of Representatives

      The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1501) requires us to report
      to your committees by May 1990 on whether aliens who are subject to
      deportation because they have been convicted of murder and drug or
      weapons trafficking (called aggravated felonies) can effectively contest
      deportation from prison. Neither the act nor the legislative history
      defined criteria for determining whether aliens are able to “effectively”
      contest deportation. Therefore, we drew criteria from the Immigration
      and Nationality Act, which affords aliens certain procedural rights, and
      evaluated the process which the immigration judges used to ensure that
      aliens were afforded these rights.

      All aliens who are deportable because they have been convicted of cer-
      tain crimes, including aggravated felonies, are entitled to a hearing
      before they can be deported. The Immigration and Naturalization Ser-
      vice (INS) presents its case for the aliens’ deportation before an immigra-
      tion judge from the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for
      Immigration Review (EOIR).In 1987, Justice, through EOIR and INS, began
      the institutional hearing program in which immigration judges held
      deportation hearings at prisons for incarcerated aliens. To comply with
      the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Justice included the hearings for
      aliens convicted of aggravated felonies in the institutional hearing
      program.




      Page 1                           GAO/GGD99-79   Prison Deportation   Hearings   for Aliens
               Et-232893




               We attended either a portion or the entirety of 171 alien deportation
Approach       hearings between November 1989 and January 1990 held at five state
               and two federal prisons. The prisons are located in states that have the
               largest alien populations. We selected the specific hearings to attend on
               the basis of when they were scheduled and our ability to attend them.

               At the hearings we attended, we noted whether the immigration judges
               took steps, as provided by the Immigration and Nationality Act, to give
               aliens (1) the opportunity to be represented; (2) notice of the charges
               against them; (3) the opportunity to examine evidence against them,
               present evidence, and cross-examine witnesses; (4) an interpreter, when
               an interpreter was needed for the hearing; and (5) notice of their rights
               to apply for relief from deportation and appeal adverse decisions.

               Our review had several limitations.

           . First, since we attended only one hearing for each alien, we were not
             present for the entire proceeding when aliens required more than one
             hearing to determine their deportability.
           l Second, we focused only on the portion of the deportation process that
             took place at the hearings we attended. We did not assess whether
             aliens, having been advised of their rights at one stage of the process,
             actually took advantage of them in preparation for the next hearing
             stage. For example, we did not attempt to determine whether aliens
             granted an adjournment for purposes of obtaining representation were
             actually able to contact and consult with representatives.
           l Third, because the 1988 act has not been in effect long enough for many
             aliens to have committed, been apprehended for, and been convicted of
             aggravated felonies, which are final and not under appeal, only 15 of
             171 hearings involved aliens convicted of aggravated felonies. We
             included the other 156 hearings to give perspective since the hearing
             process is the same for all aliens in prison.
           . Fourth, we cannot project the results of the 171 hearings we attended to
             other deportation hearings at either the prisons we visited or prisons we
             did not.
           l Fifth, while our presence at these hearings may have affected what took
             place, we have no way of knowing exactly how and to what extent.

               We discussed the report with EOIR officials, who said the report was fair
               and balanced. We incorporated their views where appropriate.

               Our review was done between September 1989 and April 1990 using
               generally accepted government auditing standards. A more detailed


               Page 2                         GAO/GGD9@79   Prison Deportation   Hearings   for Aliens
                   B-332893




                   description of our objectives, scope, and methodology comprises appen-
                   dix I.


                    In the 171 alien deportation hearings we attended, we found that the
Results in Brief   judges informed all the aliens of their rights as provided by the law to
                    contest deportation. Because in some cases aliens needed to pursue these
                    rights outside of the hearings we attended, we cannot conclude that each
                   of the 171 aliens was actually able to take advantage of these rights and
                   thus contest deportation.

                   At all 171 hearings, the immigration judges advised the aliens of their
                   right to obtain representation, unless the alien already had representa-
                   tion. In 99 hearings, aliens had no representation because they waived
                   their right to representation; were granted an adjournment to obtain
                   representation; or, after having been given the opportunity to be repre-
                   sented, were not represented, and their case proceeded. Where the aliens
                   did not have representation, the immigration judges elaborated on the
                   aliens’ rights and on the possible consequences of adverse rulings.

                   We also noted that the aliens were consistently informed of the charges
                   against them, their right to present and examine evidence, their right to
                   appeal, and, where appropriate, their right to apply for relief from
                   deportation. When aliens were represented, the judge relied on their rep-
                   resentatives to protect these rights.

                   Also, interpreters were always provided when, in the judge’s opinion,
                   they were required (i.e., the alien did not demonstrate the ability to com-
                   municate effectively in English), or when requested by the alien or the
                   alien’s representative.


                   The Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC. 1101) authorizes INS to
Background         apprehend aliens and deport them as criminal aliens if they have been
                   (1) convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within 5
                   years of entry and sentenced to confinement for a year or more or (2)
                   convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, not arising
                   from a single action, at any time after entry, regardless of whether con-
                   fined. Crimes of moral turpitude include, for example, murder, man-
                   slaughter, rape, and sodomy. INS can also deport aliens if they are
                   narcotic addicts or have been convicted of a drug offense.




                   Page 3                        GAO/GGDW79    Prison Deportation   Hearinga   for Aliens
    H-232893




    The Immigration and Nationality Act sets out procedural requirements
    governing deportation hearings. The act (8 USC. 1252(b)) provides the
    following procedural rights in deportation cases:

l   The aliens will be given notice, reasonable under all the circumstances,
    of the nature of the charges against them and of the time and place at
    which the proceeding will be held.
l   The aliens will have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to
    the government) by such counsel, authorized to practice in such pro-
    ceedings, as they shall choose.
l   The aliens will have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence
    against them, to present evidence in their own behalf, and to cross-
    examine witnesses presented by the government.
l   No decision of deportability will be valid unless it is based upon reason-
    able, substantial, and probative evidence.

    The aliens’ right to examine and present evidence-the opportunity to
    express themselves- includes the use of an interpreter when requested
    by them or when the judge determines one is necessary.’

    The Immigration Judge’s Bench Book provides guidance to judges on
    conducting deportation hearings. It includes instructions for determining
    if an interpreter is needed and actions to be taken when aliens have no
    representation. The guidance is the same for hearings conducted in
    prison or elsewhere.

    Although the Immigration and Nationality Act states the rights of aliens
    during their deportation hearings, failure to afford these rights during
    the hearing may not affect the final resolution of the aliens’ cases.
    Courts have held that, in order to overturn an immigration judge’s deci-
    sion because of a procedural error, the error must have affected the out-
    come of the alien’s case.

    At a deportation hearing, an INS trial attorney presents INS’case before
    an immigration judge. Once INS’ allegations of deportability are estab-
    lished, the hearing procedures provide that aliens may then seek relief
    from deportation. Aliens may use numerous grounds in contesting
    deportation (e.g., claim that they are U.S. citizens) or seeking relief from
    deportation (e.g., apply for political asylum). In certain instances. aliens

     ‘In El Rescate Legal Services, the court ruled that when an immigration judge concludes that an
    interpreter is necessary, due process requires interpretation of an entire immigration court proceed-
    ing. El Rescate Legal Services v. EOIR, 727 F. Supp. 557 (C.D. Cal. 1989). The JustIce Department has
    appealed this decision, according to EOIR.



    Page 4                                   GAO/GGD9@79 F’rison Deportation        Hearings   for Aliens
I%?32893




are not eligible for relief (e.g., aliens who entered the country illegally
and were charged with crimes of moral turpitude). Aliens may appeal
adverse rulings through the Department of Justice to the federal courts
up to the Supreme Court.

The deportation process for criminal aliens usually begins upon convic-
tion and sentencing for a deportable crime. Working with local law
enforcement agencies, INS identifies such aliens within the federal, state,
and local criminal justice systems. INS compiles the evidence deemed nec-
essary for deportation and issues (1) detainers, which notify the appli-
cable law enforcement agencies to turn the aliens over to INS when they
are released from custody and (2) orders to show cause, which inform
aliens that they must appear for deportation hearings and show cause
why the deportation process should not proceed. When aliens complete
their prison sentences, the prison officials may turn them over to INS.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, aliens sentenced to impris-
onment shall not be deported until released. If INS wants to initiate
deportation proceedings against the aliens at the completion of their
sentences, it can place them in one of its detention facilities or release
them on bond or on their own recognizance.z

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 requires that criminal
aliens shall have their deportation hearings as expeditiously as possible.
According to the Chief Immigration Judge, the institutional hearing pro-
gram was established to meet this requirement. Under the institutional
hearing program, which began in 1987, immigration judges hold depor-
tation hearings for criminal aliens while they are still incarcerated. If
found deportable (and if any appeals are unsuccessful), aliens are
deported after being released. Aliens incarcerated in state prisons that
are not used for deportation hearings are transported to one that is used
for hearings and returned after the hearing to their original prison. Only
two federal prisons are used for deportation hearings. Aliens who com-
mit federal crimes are transferred or sentenced to one of these prisons
so they can have deportation hearings before completing their
sentences.

To give added emphasis to the problems stemming from drug-related
crimes and aliens involved in such crimes, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of
1988 required, among other things, the deportation of aliens convicted
of drug-related crimes. It added the term “aggravated felony” for crimes
of murder and drug or weapons trafficking to the Immigration and

‘INS must detain aliens convicted of aggravated felonies after they are released from prison.



Page 6                                    GAO/GGD9@79       Prison Deportation   Hearings   for Aliens
                              B-233393




                              Nationality Act and required deportation proceedings for aliens con-
                              victed of these crimes to commence before their release from prison.

                              The 1988 act did not change the deportation hearing process. In practice
                              the hearings for aliens convicted of aggravated felonies were incorpo-
                              rated into the institutional hearing program for all incarcerated aliens.
                              According to INS and EOIR,the same procedures used for the institutional
                              hearing program apply to hearings for aliens charged with aggravated
                              felonies. For fiscal year 1989 and the first 6 months of fiscal year 1990,
                              EOIR received 3,460 and 1,690 cases, respectively. These cases included
                              21 and 101 deportation hearings for aliens convicted of aggravated felo-
                              nies, respectively.


                              The 171 deportation hearings we attended generally were conducted in
Results of Deportation        the same manner. The objective of our review was to determine whether
Hearings Attended             the immigration judges informed the aliens of their rights and gave them
                              the opportunities to exercise their rights.

                              Specifically, we looked for whether the aliens were (1) offered the
                              opportunity to be represented, (2) given notice of the charges against
                              them, (3) offered an interpreter, (4) given the opportunity to present
                              and examine evidence, and (6) given the opportunity to apply for relief
                              from deportation and appeal the immigration judges’ decisions.


Right to Representation       In the 171 hearings we attended, we found that all the aliens, including
                              those convicted of aggravated felonies, were (1) informed of their right
                              to representation and (2) given the opportunity to obtain representation.
                              In these 171 hearings, 72 aliens had representation (6 were represented
                              by telephone), and 99 did not. In those 99 cases,

                          l 66 aliens waived their right to representation and represented them-
                            selves, and in 6 of these cases the aliens had their cases adjourned for
                            reasons such as to prepare papers, gather evidence, or present witnesses
                            in support of their claim for relief from deportation, or for EOIR to obtain
                            an interpreter;
                          l 36 aliens were granted an adjournment to obtain representation (this
                            was at least the second adjournment for 13 aliens to get representation);
                            and
                          . 8 aliens had their hearings proceed without representation after having
                            been given at least one opportunity to obtain representation at one of
                            their prior hearings, according to the judges.


                              Page 6                         GAO/GGD9@79 Prison Deportation   Hearings   for Aliens
B-232893




According to the Chief Immigration Judge, when aliens were not repre-
sented, the immigration judges’ statutory responsibility as a special
 inquiry officer had more significance. We noted that the immigration
judges provided explanations to the aliens of their rights and of possible
consequences under the law of adverse rulings. For example, in one
 case, an alien, prior to his deportation hearing, chose not to be repre-
 sented and did not contest his deportation. While the judge was explain-
 ing the deportation process to the alien, the judge noted that the alien
 might have been a legal resident. The judge suggested that the alien get
 representation because the alien might be eligible to obtain relief from
 deportation. The alien declined, and the hearing proceeded. We noted
 other cases in which the judges took steps to assist unrepresented aliens
 in understanding their rights.

To assist aliens in obtaining representation, the immigration judges gave
them a list of individuals and organizations who may be willing to pro-
vide free or nominally priced legal services. Regulations require INS to
maintain current and accurate lists of qualified organizations. However,
when we reviewed the lists for six of the seven prisons, we found that
four of the five lists contained either inaccurate or outdated informa-
tion.3 Of the 36 organizations listed in the five lists, 11 said that they
would represent criminal aliens and 16 said they would not. We could
not reach the other nine organizations by phone because the phone was
not in service or no one answered after several attempts. We discussed
these problems with the lists with an INS Deputy Assistant Commis-
sioner for Investigations. He issued a written reminder on February 9,
 1990, to the appropriate officials about providing accurate and current
lists of legal services. We did not follow up on the results of his
reminder.

According to the Chief Immigration Judge, his office sends its own list,
which is separate from INS’ list of possible providers of legal services, to
aliens at the same time it notifies them of their scheduled deportation
hearing. These lists are specific for each prison and EOIR updates them
annually. He added that the prospective providers are contacted in
advance to determine if they will be willing to represent aliens who are
in prison. He pointed out that sometimes the representative (1) may ini-
tially agree but later may not be able to assist the incarcerated aliens or
decide not to represent criminal aliens or (2) may decide the alien does


“In two prisons, the same list was used. At one prison we did not obtain the list because the aliens at
the hearings waived their right to representation and thus did not need a list.



Page 7                                     GAO/GGD90-79      Prison Deportation    Hearings   for Aliens
                          B-232993




                          not qualify for free or low cost services. We did not try to determine if
                          the aliens received these lists.

                          Location of aliens at prisons that are not near population centers could
                          affect their ability to obtain representation. The Chief Immigration
                          Judge recognized this potential problem and said that, where practical,
                          selecting centrally located, larger prisons for deportation hearings may
                          help aliens locate representatives.


Notification of Charges   Generally, immigration judges gave aliens the opportunity to hear the
                          charges against them. At 81 hearings, the judges read and explained the
                          charges INS had brought against the aliens. At 28 hearings, the aliens or
                          their representatives waived the reading of the charges. The immigra-
                          tion judges did not read the charges in 62 hearings we attended. For 40
                          of the 62 hearings, the alien had another hearing at which time the
                          charges could have been read, but we were not present. For 21 hearings,
                          the aliens’ cases were adjourned so that representation or an interpreter
                          could be obtained. In one hearing, the case was closed because the alien
                          was being released from prison.


Use of Interpreters       Interpreters were present when the aliens or their representatives
                          requested them or when in the judges’ opinion they were needed. Unless
                          the aliens wanted their hearings in English, none of the hearings pro-
                          ceeded without interpreters when the aliens’ native language was not
                          English. In these instances, the judges reminded them that the interpret-
                          ers were present to assist if the aliens had difficulty communicating or
                          understanding the hearing. At two hearings in which interpreters were
                          not present when they were needed, the hearings were adjourned so that
                          EOIR could provide interpreters.




Right to Present and      In 102 of 171 cases, the judges informed the aliens of their right to pre-
                          sent and examine evidence (including cross-examining witnesses) during
Examine Evidence          their explanation of the deportation process. In 13 additional cases,
                          aliens presented evidence to contest their deportation. For example,
                          aliens presented evidence of an appeal of their criminal convictions or
                          their claim of U.S. citizenship. In 56 hearings, the judge did not inform
                          aliens of their right to present and examine evidence when we were pre-
                          sent. However, 43 of the 66 aliens had representation and 12 had their
                          hearing adjourned to obtain representation or to have EDIR obtain an
                          interpreter. The remaining alien waived the right to be represented at


                          Page 8                         GAO/GGD9@79   Prison Deportation   Hearings   for Aliens
                            B232t393




                            the hearing. The alien had a previous hearing in which the judge may
                            have explained this right to him.


Right to Apply for Relief   Aliens subject to deportation may apply for relief from deportation on
                             several grounds-political    asylum, for example. The judges informed
From Deportation            them of their right to apply for relief when the aliens appeared eligible
                            to apply. In addition to informing aliens of their right to apply for relief,
                            the judges usually gave unrepresented aliens guidance as to the type of
                             relief they could request if they appeared eligible to apply. However, the
                            judges generally did not inform aliens of their right to file for relief
                            when none was apparently available. For example, the judges generally
                             did not inform aliens of possible relief if they were convicted of crimes
                             of moral turpitude, drug violations, or aggravated felonies and were in
                             the United States illegally, because these aliens generally are not eligible
                             for relief from deportation.

                             During several hearings, the immigration judges asked the aliens ques-
                            tions to determine if any basis existed for granting relief from deporta-
                            tion. For example, one immigration judge asked unrepresented aliens,
                            just prior to rendering his decision, if they feared being deported to the
                             country they designated. The judge told us he did this to assure himself
                             that he was not ordering aliens sent to life-threatening situations. In
                             response to his question, none of the aliens said that they feared going
                             to the country they designated.


Right to Appeal             For the 76 cases in which the judges ordered the alien deported, they
                            informed the aliens of their right to appeal the decision. Of the 76 cases,
                            14 aliens reserved their right to appeal, and 62 aliens waived it.


                            In our opinion, the immigration judges took the necessary steps to
Conclusions                 inform aliens of their rights provided by the law for the 171 hearings we
                            attended. Because some of the aliens needed to pursue these rights
                            outside of the hearings we attended, we do not know if each of the 171
                            aliens was able to take advantage of these rights.

                            We identified errors in INS’ lists of possible representatives it gave to
                            aliens. INS addressed the problem when it issued a reminder to appropri-
                            ate officials to keep accurate and updated lists, which we considered to
                            be an adequate response. Since EOIR provides its own list to aliens, they
                            may have an additional source from which to obtain representation.


                            Page 9                          GAO/GGD9@79   Prison Deportation   Hearings   for Aliens
                                                                               +-
B-232999




Locations of the prisons used for deportation hearings could affect some
aspects of the process. For example, aliens may have more difficulty
arranging for representation when imprisoned in isolated areas. Having
deportation hearings at selected state and federal prisons that are near
population centers is one way of facilitating aliens’ access to
representatives.


Copies of this report are being sent to the Attorney General; the Direc-
tor, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties.
Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. If you
have any questions about the contents of this report, please call me at
2758389.




Lowell Dodge
Director, Administration
  of Justice Issues




Page 10                        GAO/GGDB@79 P&on   Deportation   Hcarlngm for Aliens
Page 11   GAO/GGD-9&79   Prison Deportation   Hednge   for Alien8
Contents


Letter
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope,and
Methodology
Appendix II
Major Contributors to
This Report




                        Abbreviations

                        EOIR      Executive Office for Immigration Review
                        INS       Immigration and Naturalization Service


                        Page 12                      GAO/GGD9&79   Prison Deportation   Hearings   for Aliens
Page 13   GAO/GGBBO-79   R-bon Deportation   Headngn   for Aliens
Appendix I

Objectives,Scope,and Methodology


               Section 7347 (e)(2) of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1501)
               requires the Comptroller General to report to the Committees on the
               Judiciary of the House of Representatives and of the Senate concerning
               the extent to which deportation proceedings held in prisons for aliens
               convicted of aggravated felonies may adversely affect their ability to
               contest deportation effectively. Neither the act nor the legislative his-
               tory defined criteria for determining whether aliens are able to “effec-
               tively” contest deportation. Therefore, we drew criteria from the
               Immigration and Nationality Act, which affords aliens certain procedu-
               ral rights, and evaluated the process that the immigration judges used to
               ensure that aliens were afforded these rights.

               We attended 171 deportation hearings either in part or in their entirety
               between November 1989 and January 1990. These hearings were held at
               five state and two federal prisons. We focused on the procedures immi-
               gration judges use to afford aliens the rights to which they are legally
               entitled. Accordingly, we tried to determine if the judges provided aliens
               (1) the opportunity to be represented by counsel, (2) notice of the
               charges against them, (3) the opportunity to examine and present evi-
               dence, (4) an interpreter when needed, and (5) notice of their rights to
               apply for relief from deportation and appeal adverse decisions. Our
               review had several limitations:

             . First, we were not present for all the hearings when more than one was
               required to complete the process. This occurred for 125 aliens. The
               deportation process can either be concluded at the aliens’ first hearing,
               or the process can take a number of hearings to conclude. For example,
               hearings can be adjourned to provide the aliens time to obtain represen-
               tation or evidence. However, we stayed for the entire proceeding for
               those hearings we attended. We did not attend all of the hearings for 125
               cases because they were held before or after the period we set aside to
               attend hearings. While deportation hearings are recorded on audiotape,
               they are transcribed only if the decision is appealed to EOIR’S Board of
               Immigration Appeals. We did not review transcripts of appealed cases or
               listen to tapes because of time constraints. Therefore, we were unable to
               determine what transpired at other hearings involving those 125 cases.
             . Second, we focused on the portion of the deportation process that took
               place at the hearings we attended. We could not assess whether aliens,
               having been advised of their rights at one stage of the process, were able
               to actually take advantage of them in preparation for the next stage. For
               example, we did not attempt to determine whether aliens granted an
               adjournment for the purpose of obtaining representation (1) were able
               to and (2) did contact and consult with representatives.


               Page 14                       GAO/GGD9@79   Prison Deportation   Hearings   for Alien8
  Appendix I
  Objectivea, Scope, and Methodology




. Third, at the time of our review, EOIR held relatively few deportation
  hearings for aliens convicted of aggravated felonies because of the new-
  ness of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. Of the 171 hearings we
  attended, only 15 were for aliens convicted of aggravated felonies. As a
  result of the 1988 act, hearings for aggravated felons were incorporated
  into the institutional hearing program with no difference in procedures.
  Therefore, our analysis included the deportation hearings of the 156
  aliens under the institutional hearing program.
. Fourth, since we did not randomly sample prisons or hearings, our
  results are not projectable to other hearings at the seven institutions or
  elsewhere.
. Fifth, while our presence at these hearings may have affected what took
  place, we have no way of knowing exactly how and to what extent.

  We attended hearings and held discussions with immigration judges at
  two federal institutions-La   Tuna Federal Correctional Institution
  (Texas) and the Federal Detention Center (Louisiana) -and at five
  state institutions-Richard   J. Donovan Correctional Facility (Califor-
  nia), Florida State Prison, Martin Correctional Institution and Work
  Camp (Florida), Stateville Correctional Center (Ilhnois), and Downstate
  Correctional Facility (New York). The two federal institutions are the
  only federal prisons used for deportation hearings of aliens convicted of
  federal crimes.

  We selected the state institutions because they are located in four of the
  five states that have the largest alien populations. We excluded state
  institutions from one of the five states, Texas, because we attended
  deportation hearings at a federal institution located there. We selected
  the specific hearings to attend on the basis of when they were scheduled
  and our ability to attend them. In addition, EOIRprovided input into our
  selection of institutions. According to an EOIR official, these seven insti-
  tutions are not unique. EOIR also informed its field offices which hearing
  we would attend.

  We did not question or evaluate any of the judges’ specific decisions. We
  did not evaluate the qualifications of the interpreters or the quality and
  accuracy of translations. We discussed our methodology for collecting
  data with EOIR and groups representing aliens, and their comments were
  considered in its development.

  In discussing the scope and methodology with the committees, they con-
  curred with our approach. We discussed the hearing process with repre-
  sentatives of EOIR, including immigration judges, and INS.


  Page 15                              GAO/GGD!W79   Prison Deportation   Hearings   for Aliena
Appendix I
Objectlvea, Scope, and Methodology




We discussed the report with ECXRofficials, who said that it was fair and
balanced. Their views were incorporated where appropriate. Our review
was done between September 1989 and April 1990 using generally
accepted government auditing standards.




Page 16                              GAO/GGDW?B   Fkbon Deportation   Heaingm   for AJiens
Appendix II

Major Contributors to This Report


                        James M. Blume, Assistant Director, Administration          of Justice Issues
General Government      Lynda L. Hemby, Typist
Division, Washington,
D.C.

New York Regional       George P. Cullen, Senior Evaluator
Office                  Rosemary K. Garner, Staff Evaluator


                        Ann H. Finley, Senior Attorney
Office of General
Counsel




(183670)                Page 17                          GAO/GGD9@79   FVison Deportation   Hearings   for Aliens
Requests for copies of GAO reports     should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting     Office
Post Office Box 6015
Gaithersburg, Maryland     20877

Telephone   202-275-6241

The first five copies of each report   are free. Additional   copies are
$2.00 each.

There is a 25% discount    on orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a
single address.

Orders must be prepaid by cash or by check or money order made
out to the Superintendent of Documents.