Biden Administration Faces Criticism Over Immigration Backlog, Case Dismissals

Under the Biden-Harris administration, nearly one million undocumented immigrants are now allowed to stay indefinitely in the United States due to delays and dismissals in immigration cases.

A new report from the House Judiciary Committee reveals that nearly 700,000 cases have been dismissed, another 109,000 cases went unprocessed in 2023, and around 200,000 cases had incomplete paperwork, preventing deportation proceedings. The administration’s handling of these cases has stirred controversy and renewed debates on immigration policy.

The Judiciary Committee’s report criticizes what it describes as “administrative maneuvering” within the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under Attorney General Merrick Garland’s leadership. According to the report, this alleged maneuvering has established what some are calling a “quiet amnesty” for undocumented immigrants, as immigration judges prioritize case closures over adjudicating cases based on merit.

The immigration court system in the U.S., staffed by roughly 700 judges, has been dealing with overwhelming case backlogs, a consequence of record-high migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border. Under guidance from the DOJ, judges have increasingly used “administrative closure” to dismiss or pause cases in an attempt to clear the massive backlog.

This procedural tool allows judges to temporarily remove cases from their active docket, though it does not provide migrants with a path to citizenship or legal residency.

The status for many of these immigrants is described as “limbo.” These individuals are not facing immediate deportation, nor are they granted legal rights. Without a path to citizenship, the report argues that they are essentially left in a state of indefinite uncertainty unless future legislation offers a path to legal status.

The report claims this approach encourages additional undocumented immigration. According to the House Judiciary Committee, by allowing large numbers of undocumented immigrants to stay without formal adjudication, the administration signals to future migrants that they can expect similar outcomes. The report also suggests this policy undermines U.S. immigration law and incentivizes further illegal immigration.

The DHS, in response, defended its track record by highlighting improvements in case filings. According to DHS data, the agency successfully filed notices to appear (NTAs) in 96% of cases since 2021 and in 98% of cases from 2023 onward. DHS clarified that cases where NTAs were not filed correctly or on time are reprocessed and scheduled for further review, denying claims of outright dismissals.

Additionally, DHS stressed that migrants in these situations are advised to maintain contact regarding their case status and are not exempt from potential future proceedings.

Amid these discussions, the Biden administration pointed to its broader immigration strategy. Officials noted a 55% decrease in migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border following the president’s executive order, which sought to limit border entries by tightening policies around asylum and increasing deportations for those without credible claims. In fact, DHS officials noted that over 700,000 migrants have been returned in 2024 alone, marking the highest number of returns in more than a decade.

Despite these points, critics argue that the administration’s overall approach is contributing to an escalating crisis. Vice President Kamala Harris, appointed by President Biden to address the “root causes” of migration, faced scrutiny for her handling of the role.

After initially delaying a visit to the border, she has since emphasized addressing economic and social issues in Central America that contribute to migration flows, though the administration’s domestic handling of immigration remains under heavy criticism.

As the 2024 election approaches, immigration has become a focal point of the presidential campaigns. Both major candidates have signaled they would handle immigration differently, though the specifics of these approaches remain a point of contention.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *