Revisiting the Need for Appointed Counsel
Lack of appointed counsel for noncitizens in deportation proceedings harms case outcomes. This policy brief examines three low-cost models to expand legal representation.
Despite the complexity of immigration law and procedures, most immigrants in the United States facing removal lack legal representation. Although federal statute affords “the privilege of being represented,” to persons in removal proceedings, appointed counsel must be “at no expense to the government.” This policy brief examines the “no expense” restriction and its effect on case outcomes. It then examines three models that could increase legal representation without significant federal funding.
The brief finds that the lack of counsel has a pronounced, negative impact on case outcomes. The author argues in favor of an appointed counsel system, contending that particularly vulnerable immigrants—including indigent immigrants with viable claims to remain in the United States and asylum seekers whose case outcomes often carry life-or-death consequences—could greatly benefit from legal representation.
The brief suggests that legal representation serves the government’s interest by promoting better-prepared cases, more efficient proceedings, shorter detention periods, and correct legal decisions. It then highlights three models to increase legal representation: (1) a public defender-like system; (2) a pro bono representation model; and (3) a legal orientation program for detainees.
About the U.S. Immigration Policy Program
The U.S. Immigration Policy Program provides analysis of U.S. immigration pathways, the impacts of enforcement and other policies, and the characteristics of immigrant populations.
