Document Objects

The State Bar of California invites members of the public, including licensed attorneys, to provide
input as it undertakes a statutorily mandated study of issues related to legal malpractice insurance.
Business and Professions Code Section 6069.5 directs the State Bar to study the following issues:
• The availability of lawyers’ professional liability insurance;
• Measures for encouraging attorneys to obtain professional liability insurance;
• Recommended ranges of insurance limits;
• The adequacy of the current disclosure rule regarding insurance; and,
• The advisability of mandating professional liability insurance for licensed attorneys.
A report on the findings of this study will be made to the California Supreme Court and Legislature on
March 31, 2019.
The State Bar’s Board of Trustees has appointed a Malpractice Insurance Working Group (MIWG) to
undertake the mandated study and report its findings to the Board. The following information about
the work of the MIWG to date can be found on the State Bar’s website:
• MIWG Charter and Roster
• Agendas and materials from past meetings:
March 12, 2018
June 4, 2018
July 9, 2018
• Video recordings from past meetings
Additional meetings of the MIWG are scheduled as follows:
August 27, 2018
180 Howard Street, San Francisco
10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
November 13, 2018
845 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles
10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
January 14, 2019
180 Howard Street, San Francisco
10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
An agenda will be posted on the State Bar’s website ten days in advance of each meeting. Members
of the public who are interested in this topic are encouraged to attend these meetings, which provide
an opportunity for public comment.
The public is also invited to participate in conference calls during which MIWG subcommittees discuss
specific topics. Agendas for these calls, as well as information about calling in, can be found on the
State Bar’s website.
Comments can also be sent via email to linda.katz@calbar.ca.gov.

MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
lJ.S. Department of’ .Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Of/ia o(the Direclor
_; /fi7 l.n’l/>11r~ l’ike. Suite !NII!
l-i1/l1 ( ‘/111n/1. \’irgi11ir1 !!II../ I
January 17, 2018
The Office of the Chieflmmigration Judge
All Immigration Judges
All Court Administrators
All Immigration Court Staff
James R. McHenry III J}\
Director
Case Priorities and Immigration Court Performance Measures
This memorandum is effective immediately, applies prospectively to all new cases filed
and to all immigration court cases reopened, recalendared, or remanded, and serves to rescind the
January 31, 2017, memorandum entitled ·’Case Processing Priorities” and all other prior
memoranda establishing case processing or docketing priorities.
I. Background
On December 6, 2017, the Attorney General issued a memorandum to all Executive
Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) employees outlining several principles to follow to
ensure that the adjudication of immigration court cases serves the national interest. It also
provided that the Director of EOIR may issue further guidance to ensure the achievement of
those principles. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § I 003.0(b )( 1 )(ii) and (iv), the EOIR Director has the
authority to “[d]irect the conduct of all EOIR employees to ensure the efficient disposition of all
pending cases, including the power, in his discretion, to set priorities or time frames for the
resolution of cases and otherwise to manage the docket of matters to be decided by the
immigration judges” and to “[ e ]valuate the performance of the Office of the Chief Immigration
Judge (OCIJ) and take corrective action where needed.”
Accordingly, pursuant to that authority and in accordance with the Attorney General’s
principles, this memorandum lays out EOIR”s specific priorities and goals in the adjudication of
immigration court cases.
AILA Doc. No. 18011834. (Posted 1/18/18)
Memorandum to OCIJ, IJs, CAs, and IC staff Page2
Subject: Case Priorities and Immigration Court Performance Measures
II. Case Prioritization
EOIR has always designated detained cases as priorities for completion. In 2014, EOIR
began designating other types of”priority” cases for docketing and processing purposes, and
those priority designations have been subsequently modified three times-most recently on
January 31, 2017.
The repeated changes in case prioritization have caused confusion and created difficulty
in comparing and tracking case data over time. But, most importantly, the frequent shifting
priority designations did not enhance docket efficiency. Not only were cases repeatedly moved
to accommodate new priorities without a clear plan for resolving both the new and older cases,
but also the designations did not adequately stress the importance of completing all cases in a
timely manner.
For example, less than 10% of cases currently pending meet the definition of “priority”
outlined in the January 31, 2017, memorandum-a statistic that conveys a potentially mistaken
impression regarding the importance of completing the other 600,000-plus pending cases that do
not bear a “priority” designation.
Accordingly, to address concerns and confusion, it is appropriate to clarify EOIR’s
priorities and goals to ensure that the adjudication of cases serves the national interest consistent
with the principles outlined by the Attorney General.
All cases involving individuals in detention or custody, regardless of the custodian, are
priorities for completion. 1 Likewise, cases subject to a statutory or regulatory deadline, cases
subject to a federal court-ordered deadline, and cases otherwise subject to an established
benchmark for completion, including those listed in Appendix A, are also priorities. As
developments warrant, other priority designations may be established as appropriate, and other
categories of cases may be tracked regardless of whether they reflect a priority designation.
The designation of a category of cases as priority is an indication of an expectation that
such cases should be completed expeditiously and without undue delay consistent with due
process. Because the designations outlined in this memorandum apply prospectively, it is not
intended to require the rescheduling of currently-docketed cases. The designation of priority
cases is also not intended to diminish or reduce the significance of other cases. Indeed, the
timely completion of all cases consistent with due process remains a matter of the utmost
importance for the agency. Finally, the designation of a case as a priority is not intended to limit
the discretion afforded an immigration judge under applicable law, nor is it intended to mandate
a specific outcome in any particular case.
1Cases of aliens in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security and aliens in the care and custody of the
Department of Health and Human Services who do not have a sponsor identified were priorities under prior policy
and remain so under this new policy.
AILA Doc. No. 18011834. (Posted 1/18/18)
Memorandum to OCIJ, IJs, CAs, and IC staff Page3
Subject: Case Priorities and Immigration Court Performance Measures
III. Immigration Court Benchmarks and Performance Metrics
Apart from designated case priorities, EOIR’s case processing has also involved other
types of evaluative measures over time, such as statutory or regulatory deadlines for the
completion of certain types of cases, including under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),
the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, and the GPRA Modernization
Act of 2010. Although these case completion goals have not previously denoted case priorities
per se, they do serve as indicators of the importance of completing certain classes of cases in a
timely manner.
Historically, EOIR also utilized case completion measures for non-detained cases from
FY 2002 to FY 2009, but it eliminated those measures in FY 2010, leading to confusion
regarding the extent to which the timely completion of non-detained cases was perceived as a
priority for the agency. The abolition of non-detained case completion benchmarks was also
subsequently criticized by both the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office oflnspector General and
the Government Accountability Office, both of whom recommended that EOIR reinstate goals
for the completion of non-detained cases. In 2016 and 2017, the House Committee on
Appropriations also directed EOIR to establish a goal that the median length of detained cases be
no longer than 60 days and the median length of non-detained cases be no longer than 365 days.
Although EOIR has previously stated that case completion goals are statements of agency
priorities and has tracked performance relative to those goals, it has not expressly designated
cases subject to such measures as priorities, unless they happened to fall into another category
that was a priority (e.g. detained cases). This has led to even further confusion regarding the
interaction between case priorities and case resolution goals, especially because the
overwhelming majority of pending cases in recent years were neither designated as a priority nor
subject to a performance goal.
Almost every trial court system utilizes performance measures or case completion
metrics to ensure that it is operating efficiently and appropriately. Some of these are established
by statute or regulation whereas others are set by policy; nevertheless, trial court performance
measures are an essential and widely-recognized tool for ensuring healthy and effective court
operations.
In the federal system, for example, the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 requires
semiannual reporting of the number of certain types of civil cases and motions pending beyond a
particular date with the intent of reducing litigation delays in federal district courts. Many
administrative adjudicatory systems also feature case processing time standards, either by statute,
AILA Doc. No. 18011834. (Posted 1/18/18)
Memorandum to OCIJ, IJs, CAs, and IC staff Page4
Subject: Case Priorities and Immigration Court Performance Measures
regulation, or policy.2 At the state level, most states have adopted court case processing time
standards, many of which follow model standards approved by the American Bar Association
(ABA).3
In fact, over 25 years ago, the ABA recognized the importance of establishing court
performance standards to ensure effective case management and to avoid undue delay; in doing
so, it outlined seven essential elements for managing cases, including several that are now being
implemented by EOIR such as “[p]romulgation and monitoring of time and clearance standards
for the overall disposition of cases,” “[ a]doption of a trial-setting policy which schedules a
sufficient number of cases to ensure efficient use of judge time while minimizing resettings
caused by overscheduling,” “[ c ]ommencement of trials on the original date scheduled with
adequate advance notice,” and “[a] firm, consistent policy for minimizing continuances.”4 In
short, court performance measures and case completion goals are common, well-established, and
necessary mechanisms for evaluating how well a court is functioning at performing its core role
of adjudicating cases.
EOIR is no exception to the rule that court performance measures are a necessary
accountability tool to ensure that a court is operating at peak efficiency, nor is there anything
novel or unique about applying performance measures to EOIR’s immigration courts.5 Rather, a
review of such measures is vital to ensure that the immigration court system is performing
strongly, that EOIR is adjudicating cases fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly consistent with its
mission, and that it is addressing its pending caseload in support of the principles established by
the Attorney General.
Accordingly, to ensure that EOIR is meeting these goals, the court-based performance
measures outlined in Appendix A to this memorandum will be tracked by EOIR, and court
2 See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1395ff(establishing hearing deadlines for cases before administrative law judges at the
Department of Health and Human Services); Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, Summary of Procedural Time
Standards for Hearing Cases, https://www.ferc.gov/legal/admin-lit/time-sum.asp (last updated Mar. JO, 2017)
(outlining time standards for administrative law judges hearing cases at the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission).
3 See Case Processing Time Standards, Nat’l Ctr. for State Courts, http://www.ncsc.org/cpts (last visited January 9,
2018); Model Time Standards for State Trial Courts (Nat’ I Ctr. for State Courts 2011 ),
http://www.ncsc.org/Services-and~Experts/Technology-tools/-/media/Files/PDF/CourtMD/Model-Time-Standardsfor-
State-Trial-Courts.ashx.
4 See Judicial Admin. Div., Am. Bar Ass’n, Standards Relating to Trial Courts § 2.51 (vol. II 1992), available at
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/divisions/Judicial/MO/MemberDocuments/trialcourtstandar
ds.authcheckdam.pdf.
5 EOIR ‘s other adjudicatory components, the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Office oft he Chief Administrative
Hearing Office, are also subject to performance measures.
AILA Doc. No. 18011834. (Posted 1/18/18)
Memorandum to OCIJ, IJs, CAs, and IC staff Page 5
Subject: Case Priorities and Immigration Court Performance Measures
performance in meeting them will be regularly audited. These goals are intended to help
determine which courts are operating in a healthy and efficient manner, and which courts may be
in need of more specialized attention in the form of additional resources, training, court
management, creative thinking and planning, and/or other action as appropriate.
As published here in Appendix A, these court-based goals are not intended to apply
specifically to any individual employee; rather, these goals apply to the court as a whole, and all
court employees accordingly share responsibility for working together to successfully meet
them.6
OCIJ will provide additional “not-to-exceed” guidelines for each goal, as appropriate.
Further, some cases may be subject to more than one goal. EOIR will also track the clearance
rate (the ratio of new cases filed to cases completed) and the age of existing cases at each court
and may announce future goals for those statistics at a later date.
Many of these measures derive from statutory or regulatory mandates, including the INA;
others derive from EOIR’s goals developed under GPRA. Still others, such as a goal of ensuring
file completion and accuracy, are simply reflections of the standard that a professional
administrative court system should endeavor to attain. Although many of these goals have
already existed for several years at EOIR, their current designation clarifies that cases subject to
a goal should be considered priority cases and reiterates that the goals themselves reflect
considered policy judgments regarding optimal court performance and functioning that EOIR’s
immigration courts should strive to achieve.
EOIR is already meeting, or close to meeting, some of these goals; for instance, the
median length of time a detained case is pending at the immigration court level is currently less
than 60 days. For other goals, they may appear merely aspirational at first, and the agency is
cognizant that it may take time for them to be fully realized. Nevertheless, as a professional
administrative court system within the DOJ exercising the Attorney General’s delegated
authority, EOIR should strive to become the preeminent administrative adjudicatory agency in
the federal government and to fulfill its mission at the highest level possible. Further, by making
you aware of these goals, you can begin thinking about how, with these goals in mind, EOIR’s
day-to-day activities can be streamlined to improve efficiency while maintaining due process.
Moreover, there is no doubt that as the agency puts into place additional resources, training, and
6 In autumn 2017, following collective bargaining, EOIR and the National Association oflmmigration Judges jointly
agreed to remove language from Article 22 of their labor agreement that had limited EOIR’s ability to measure and
evaluate immigration judge performance. Although many of the policy considerations relevant for setting court
‘ performance goals are also relevant for setting perfonnance metrics for individual immigration judges, especially
regarding goals that have existed in some form at EOIR already for several years, the implementation of those metrics
specifically for immigration judges is subject to an ongoing process and is beyond the scope of this memorandum.
AILA Doc. No. 18011834. (Posted 1/18/18)
Memorandum to OCIJ, IJs, CAs, and IC staff Page6
Subject: Case Priorities and Immigration Court Performance Measures
more efficient processes, you will continue impress with your dedication to our mission. As the
Attorney General indicated, every employee at EOIR can contribute something to improve the
system, and your creative suggestions regarding more effective case management are welcome.
IV. Conclusion
Thank you for your dedication and professionalism as we work together as a team to
ensure that the adjudication of immigration court cases serves the national interest in accordance
with the principles outlined by the Attorney General.
Please contact your Assistant Chief Immigration Judge with any questions you may have
concerning this memorandum.
This guidance is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create, any right
or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the
United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any
other person. Nothing in this memorandum should be construed as mandating a particular
outcome in any specific case.
Attachment
AILA Doc. No. 18011834. (Posted 1/18/18)
APPENDIX A
IMMIGRATION COURT PERFORMANCE MEASURES
1. Eighty-five percent (85%) of all non-status7 detained removal8 cases should be completed9
within 60 days of filing of the Notice to Appear (NTA), reopening or recalendaring of the
case, remand from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), or notification of detention.
2. Eighty-five percent (85%) of all non-status non-detained removal cases should be completed
within 365 days (1 year) of filing of the NTA, reopening or recalendaring of the case, remand
from the BIA, or notification of release from custody.
3. Eight-five percent (85%) of all motions should be adjudicated within 40 days of filing.
4. Ninety percent (90%) of all custody redeterminations should be completed within 14 days of
the request for redetermination.
5. Ninety-five percent (95%) of all hearings should be completed on the initial scheduled
individual merits hearing date.
6. One hundred percent (100%) of all credible fear reviews should be completed within seven
(7) days of the initial determination by an asylum officer that an alien does not have a
credible fear of persecution. See INA§ 235(b)(l )(B)(iii)(lll). One hundred percent (100%)
of all reasonable fear reviews should be completed within 10 days of the filing of the
negative reasonable fear determination as reflected in Form I-863. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31 (g).
7. One hundred percent (100%) of all expedited asylum cases should be completed within the
statutory deadline and consistent with established EOIR policy. See INA 208(d)(5)(A)(iii);
OPPM 13-02.
8. Eighty-five percent (85%) of all Institutional Hearing Program (IHP) removal cases should
be completed prior to the alien’s release from detention by the IHP custodian.
9. One hundred percent (I 00%) of all electronic and paper records should be accurate and
complete.
7 A status case is (I) one in which an immigration judge is required to continue the case pursuant to binding authority
in order to await the adjudication of an application or petition by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, (2) one
in which the immigration judge is required to reserve a decision rather than completing the case pursuant to law or
policy, or (3) one which is subject to a deadline established by a federal court order.
8 A “removal” case includes a case in removal proceedings, in addition to any reopened, recaiendared, or remanded
cases in exclusion or deportation proceedings.
9 A completed removal case is one in which a final decision has been rendered concluding the case at the immigration
court level and encompasses an order of removal, an order of voluntary departure, an order terminating proceedings,
or an order granting protection or relief from removal. For other types of cases, a completed case is one in which a
final decision has been rendered appropriate for the specific type of case proceeding.
AILA Doc. No. 18011834. (Posted 1/18/18)

AILA NorCal 2018​

National Day of Action (NDA)

Nonprofit Scholarship Application Questions

(Due Date: Tuesday 2/​20/201​8​)

Interested applicants: please fill out the application at the end of this email and send your completed application as a Word or PDF file to nonprofit@ailanorcal.com.

All applications are due at 5pm on

​Tuesday, February 20​, 2018,​

Name:

Are you a member of AILA and the AILA Northern California Chapter?

Name of the nonprofit organization for which you work:

Is it a national organization?  If so, in which cities and states does the organization have offices?

Your position/title at the nonprofit:

Please describe your work responsibilities and whether they include direct representation of immigrants.

Is your organization already sending a representative to AILA’s National Day of Action?

If not, why not?  If so, who is attending and please describe why an additional representative is needed.

Please describe a compelling immigration case that you have handled in the last two years.

What are the major immigration reform needs that you see among your clients?

Are you familiar with the current immigration issues before Congress?

If not, do you commit to becoming familiar with them before National Day of Action?

Have you previously engaged in advocacy work?  If so, what type of work was it?

Would you be willing to take the lead during at least one meeting with a congressional representative during National Day of Action?  (This includes helping to organize the meeting with a representative on behalf of AILA NorCal in advance of the meeting, researching the representative, and leading conversation during the meeting.)  If so, please explain.

Please feel free to provide any additional information concerning your qualifications and why you are a good fit to be an AILA NorCal nonprofit representative at National Day of Action.

Dear AILA NorCal Members,

​

​Thursday, April 12, 2018, is National Day of Action in Washington, DC. On April 12, 2018, AILA members and their clients are invited to Capitol Hill to urge the passage of fair, just, and sensible immigration reform.

Since AILA’s founding, our members have fought hard for legislative reform and positive policy changes, and to defend against immigration policies that hurt immigrants, our communities, and businesses across the country.

​The Northern California Chapter of AILA ​is proud to send a delegation to lobby day every year. Included in the delegation are members of our chapter who work for nonprofit organizations and are sponsored by AILA NorCal. AILA’s 2017 National Day of Action had a record number of attendees, and our chapter increased the number of scholarship recipients to four.

For 2018 the chapter will again sponsor four nonprofit AILA members to attend AILA’s National Day of Action in Washington, DC on Thursday, April 12, 2018. The AILA NorCal scholarship covers airfare and accommodation in Washington, DC.  This year, the scholarship will cover an additional night of accommodation and registration to the AILA Spring Conference on Friday (up to the early bird rate).

http://agora.aila.org/Conference/Detail/1414

Interested applicants: please fill out the application at the end of this email and send your completed application as a Word or PDF file to nonprofit@ailanorcal.com.

All applications are due at 5pm on

​Tuesday, February 20​, 2018,​

and we welcome all nonprofit members interested in advocacy work to apply!

Still unsure if you should apply?  Check out this video of AILA’s 2017 National Day of Action: https://youtu.be/xq7mXKcodks

Please forward this email to anyone who you think might be a good fit.

The selection criteria include the following:

–          member of AILA and AILA NorCal

–          must work full time (or only) for a nonprofit organization

–          nonprofit organization has funding limitations which preclude it from sending individual as representative for NDA

–          substantial portion of employment at nonprofit organization is in direct legal services to immigrants

–          individual is able to discuss compelling individual cases

–          has knowledge of current immigration issues before Congress or commits to becoming familiar with them before NDA

–          nonprofit organization has no sister affiliates in DC area and/or priority will be given to organizations that do not have offices in DC area and thus would be otherwise unrepresented at NDA

Summary of roles/responsibilities of AILA nonprofit NDA representative:

–        Participate in a mandatory Media/Advocacy Training set for March 8, 2018 time TBD in San Francisco

–        Participate in at least three planning/logistics conference calls with all AILA NorCal NDA attendees in March-April

–          Monitor and participate in email correspondence between NDA NorCal organizers and attendees in March-April

–          Contact the scheduler of the member of Congress in your or your organization’s district, and other offices as organized by the coordinator, to schedule meeting for NDA

–          Email NDA NorCal organizers the names of the staffers from your district that NorCal members are meeting with, their titles, and the time/location of the meeting

–          Serve as Team Lead for the meeting with your Representative including working with the other NorCal attendees to develop an agenda and talking points for that legislative meeting

–          Submit receipts and a completed reimbursement request to AILA NorCal Treasurer for reimbursement in timely manner

–          Make your travel arrangements to Washington, DC and room reservations

–          Travel to Washington, DC for National Day of Action in April

–          Attend a “working dinner” the Wednesday night before NDA to discuss strategies with other NDA participants from AILA NorCal

–          Attend 4-5 group meetings with various members of Congress and/or their staffers to educate them about the complexities of immigration law, explain the way that the law impacts our clients, and advocate for agreed-upon priorities

–          Send a thank you note/email and any promised follow-up information to the individuals you met with at the meeting that you organized

Feel free to contact the AILA NorCal Nonprofit Coordinator Emily Abraham (emily@socialjusticecollaborative.org) with questions about applying, and NorCal NDA Coordinator Tess Feldman (tfeldman@clsepa.org) if you have questions about National Day of Action.

You will also find more information about 2018 National Day of Action here: http://www.aila.org/advo-media/tools/ailastandswithdreamers-week-of-action?utm_source=aila.org&utm_medium=InfoNet%20Search

AILA NorCal 2018​

National Day of Action (NDA)

Nonprofit Scholarship Application Questions

(Due Date: Tuesday 2/​20/201​8​)

Name:

Are you a member of AILA and the AILA Northern California Chapter?

Name of the nonprofit organization for which you work:

Is it a national organization?  If so, in which cities and states does the organization have offices?

Your position/title at the nonprofit:

Please describe your work responsibilities and whether they include direct representation of immigrants.

Is your organization already sending a representative to AILA’s National Day of Action?

If not, why not?  If so, who is attending and please describe why an additional representative is needed.

Please describe a compelling immigration case that you have handled in the last two years.

What are the major immigration reform needs that you see among your clients?

Are you familiar with the current immigration issues before Congress?

If not, do you commit to becoming familiar with them before National Day of Action?

Have you previously engaged in advocacy work?  If so, what type of work was it?

Would you be willing to take the lead during at least one meeting with a congressional representative during National Day of Action?  (This includes helping to organize the meeting with a representative on behalf of AILA NorCal in advance of the meeting, researching the representative, and leading conversation during the meeting.)  If so, please explain.

Please feel free to provide any additional information concerning your qualifications and why you are a good fit to be an AILA NorCal nonprofit representative at National Day of Action.

Mesa Verde Security Clerk, Ms. Ryanna Morua, has assumed the responsibility of scheduling all attorney calls and visits. For future calls/visits, please contact her at rmorua@geogroup.com of 661-859-1028, Ext. 139.  For all other attorney issues, please continue to contact Cathy Harvey at caharvey@geogroup.com.