DOJ Proposes Giving Legal Advice to Immigrants in Cases It Oversees

In interviews, legal service providers worried that group sessions would not provide the “ in-depth individualized consultations” required under the settlement agreement and could make it difficult to serve families who speak different languages.

EOIR said in a court document filed yesterday that it will refer Ms. L class members to private pro bono attorneys who can provide individualized advice. Lee Gelernt, lead counsel for the ACLU in the case, contended during the hearing that this is unrealistic.

“We’re talking about thousands of cases,” Gelernt told the judge. “It takes a lot of work to get a firm to take one [pro bono] case.”

The settlement agreement required that the government “ensure that the Program is adequately resourced and funded to provide services for all unrepresented Ms. L. Settlement Class members, with the ability to increase funding to meet projected needs.”

Acacia has pointed out that, even under its existing contract, the government only supplied enough funding to provide legal services for about 12% of those who qualify.

The organization maintains a waitlist with the names and contact information of class members who are eligible for legal services under the settlement agreement, but have not yet received it. Van Hofwegen said that EOIR, communicating for the first time with Acacia, asked for a copy of the waitlist on Tuesday.

Van Hofwegen said that subcontracted providers have already told families they’ve been advising that services are no longer available starting May 1.

“There were people who were scheduled for appointments next week to finish their parole applications or to help them get ready for court hearings that are coming up,” she said. “Those appointments have been canceled.”

Immigration Center for Women and Children, one of Acacia’s subcontractors, has said it cannot abandon the cases of about 10 families who face immediate court deadlines and will continue to provide them legal services on its own dime, but they’re not taking on new participants. “As of 5-1, we’re operating without any funding,” said ICWC’s directing attorney, Danielle Fritz.

Among Van Hofwegen’s concerns is that EOIR, which has already suffered staffing cuts, may not have the capacity to handle the difficult cases presented by separated families. “These are people who have been through a lot, who have really complicated immigration histories, really complicated options of how to move forward,” she said.

Further, Fritz of ICWC worried that if services are provided directly by the EOIR from now on, program participants may be reluctant to divulge sensitive information, as they normally would as part of a legal consultation.

“We always emphasize in our services that even though we’re funded by the government and we have certain reporting requirements, we don’t reveal the content of our appointments or what we’re advising them,” she said. “There are going to be questions, of course, lack of trust, people may be unwilling to participate.”

Super, the Georgetown law professor, said that’s a reasonable fear, given that the government is essentially these families’ opposition in court, as well as the adjudicator of their cases.