Administrative Closure Administrative closure can be requested by either the government or the respondent. It may be offered by the government when they prefer not to take testimony or where there potential issued regarding whether someone should receive asylum or another form of relief. This may occur if there are issues with jurisdiction, timeliness, or other procedural matters. When administratively closed, your case technically remains “pending” with the immigration court and can be re-opened at any time by either party or the judge. The greatest benefit of administrative closure is that employment authorization remains valid and can continue to be renewed since the underlying application for relief is still pending, although there are no future hearing dates being scheduled and that application will not ever be adjudicated unless things change. When a case is administratively closed a person remains in removal proceedings. It is essentially just removing the case from the Court’s calendar so there are no more future hearing dates, but the case is still before the Court. If the respondent wants to pursue relief before USCIS they would need to dispose of the case before the Court first since jurisdiction is still vested with the Court. For the same reason the respondent cannot leave the country without “self-deporting.” DHS used to agree to administrative closure as a matter of PD more often than they do now. Dismissal is now the much preferred way of exercising PD.

Aggravated felonies are defined at 8 USC § 1101(a)(43), which lists dozens of common-law terms and references to federal statutes. Aggravated felonies (“AF”) are the convictions with the most serious immigration consequences for a noncitizen. Noncitizens who have been convicted of an AF are prohibited from receiving most forms of relief from deportation, including asylum, and from being readmitted to the United States at any time in the future. A noncitizen who is convicted of an aggravated felony, deported or removed, and then returns to the U.S. without permission faces a tough federal prison sentence under 8 USC §1326(b)(2). Mandatory Detention for Aggravated Felonies Federal immigration authorities are required to detain any immigrant convicted of an “aggravated felony” upon his or her release from criminal custody. To obtain bond from an immigration judge, LPRs who are detained following a conviction of a potential “aggravated felony” must demonstrate with substantial likelihood that the crime in question does not qualify as an “aggravated felony. Aggravated Felony Bars Relief LPR Cancellation of Removal LPRs who have been convicted of an aggravated felony cannot receive 42A LPR cancellation of removal. Asylum Particularly serious crimes bar asylum relief and a conviction for any aggravated felony is considered a particularly serious crime in asylum determinations, regardless of the term of criminal incarceration. In addition, for purposes of asylum, additional crimes may be defined as “particularly serious crimes” or “serious nonpolitical crimes” by regulation. See 8 USC § 1158(b)(2)(B)(i). Further, courts have held that the Attorney General may designate a specific offense as a “particularly serious crime” through case-by-case adjudication. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(B)(ii). Waivers Certain LPRs may not obtain a waiver of inadmissibility under Section 212(h) of the INA if they were convicted of an AF. A 212(h) waiver can waive criminal offenses that make a noncitizen inadmissible and allow for them to be admitted to the United States. Voluntary Departure An immigrant convicted of an aggravated felony is ineligible for voluntary departure. Voluntary departure is a discretionary form of relief allowing a deportable noncitizen to leave the country at their own expense in place of formal deportation. Permanent Inadmissibility Following Departure from the United States A noncitizen removed from the United States after being convicted of an aggravated felony (or who leaveswhile an order of removal is outstanding) is permanently inadmissible. To lawfully reenter the United States, such an immigrant must receive a special waiver from USCIS, in addition to meeting all other grounds of admissibility. Deportation without a Removal Hearing Certain noncitizens convicted of an aggravated felony are provided fewer legal protections than otherimmigrants. Any noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony who is not a lawful permanent resident (LPR) may be administratively removed/deported from the United States without a formal hearing before anImmigration Judge. See INA § 238, 8 U.S.C. § 1228. What is an Aggravated Felony Statute – INA § 101(a)(43) (43) The term “aggravated felony” means- (A) murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor; (B) illicit trafficking in a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21), including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of title 18); See section 802 of Title 21 here. (C) illicit trafficking in firearms or destructive devices (as defined in section 921 of title 18) or in explosive materials (as defined in section 841(c) of that title); (D) an offense described in section 1956 of title 18 (relating to laundering of monetary instruments) or section 1957 of that title (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specific unlawful activity) if the amount of the funds exceeded $10,000; (E) an offense described in- (i) section 842(h) or (i) of title 18, or section 844(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), or (i) of that title (relating to explosive materials offenses); (ii) section 922(g)(1), (2), (3), (4), or (5), (j), (n), (o), (p), or (r) or 924(b) or (h) of title 18 (relating to firearms offenses); or (iii) section 5861 of title 26 (relating to firearms offenses); (F) a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18, but not including a purely political offense) for which the term of imprisonment at 5 least one year; (G) a theft offense (including receipt of stolen property) or burglary offense for which the term of imprisonment at 5 least one year; (H) an offense described in section 875, 876, 877, or 1202 of title 18 (relating to the demand for or receipt of ransom); (I) an offense described in section 2251, 2251A, or 2252 of title 18 (relating to child pornography); (J) an offense described in section 1962 of title 18 (relating to racketeer influenced corrupt organizations), or an offense described in section 1084 (if it is a second or subsequent offense) or 1955 of that title (relating to gambling offenses), for which a sentence of one year imprisonment or more may be imposed; (K) an offense that- (i) relates to the owning, controlling, managing, or supervising of a prostitution business; (ii) is described in section 2421, 2422, or 2423 of title 18 (relating to transportation for the purpose of prostitution) if committed for commercial advantage; or (iii) is described in any of sections 1581–1585 or 1588–1591 of title 18 (relating to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, and trafficking in persons); (L) an offense described in- (i) section 793 (relating to gathering or transmitting national defense information), 798 (relating to disclosure of classified information), 2153 (relating to sabotage) or 2381 or 2382 (relating to treason) of title 18; (ii) section 3121 of title 50 (relating to protecting the identity of undercover intelligence agents); or (iii) section 3121 of title 50 (relating to protecting the identity of undercover agents); (M) an offense that- (i) involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000; or (ii) is described in section 7201 of title 26 (relating to tax evasion) in which the revenue loss to the Government exceeds $10,000; (N) an offense described in paragraph (1)(A) or (2) of section 1324(a) of this title (relating to alien smuggling), except in the case of a first offense for which the alien has affirmatively shown that the alien committed the

RIGHT TO A FULL & FAIR HEARING An alien who faces removal is entitled to a full and fair removal hearing under both the Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See Santos-Alvarado v. Barr, 967 F.3d 428, 439 (5th Cir. 2020) (“The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects individuals in removal proceedings.” (citation omitted)); Vetcher v. Barr, 953 F.3d 361, 370 (5th Cir. 2020) (stating that “removal proceedings must be conducted according to standards of fundamental fairness”), petition for cert. filed (U.S. June 26, 2020) (No. 19-1437); Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 474, 479 (BIA 2011) (“Included in the rights that the Due Process Clause requires in removal proceedings is the right to a full and fair hearing.”); see also section 240(b)(4)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B) (2020) (providing that “the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against the alien, to present evidence on the alien’s own behalf, and to cross-examine witnesses presented by the Government”). ESTABLISHING VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS To establish that due process rights were violated, the respondent must prove that there was a deficiency or violation and that he was prejudiced by it. See Okpala v. Whitaker, 908 F.3d 965, 971 (5th Cir. 2018) (“To prevail on a claim regarding an alleged denial of due process rights, an alien must make an initial showing of substantial prejudice.”); Matter of D-, 20 I&N Dec. 827, 831 (BIA 1994) (per curiam) (noting that an alien has been denied a fair hearing “only if he has been prejudiced by some deficiency so as to deprive him of due process”); Matter of Santos, 19 I&N Dec. 105, 107 (BIA 1984) (stating that “an alien must demonstrate that he has been prejudiced by a violation of a procedural rule or regulation before his deportation proceeding will be invalidated”). The respondent has not shown that his rights were violated or that he suffered prejudice in his removal proceedings. Matter of E-F-H-L-, 26 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2014) In Matter of E-F-H-L-, 26 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2014) the BIA decided on June 12, 2014 that an alien must have a full and fair hearing, introducing testimony, before an immigration judge could make a decision on his application for asylum, withholding of removal or deferral of removal.  The case arose out of a application for asylum before an immigration judge in Texas.  In that case, the immigration judge denied the respondent’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal without first holding a individual hearing.  Instead, the immigration judge found that the respondent’s written asylum application as submitted to the court and the alien’s pre-hearing brief in support of his petition did not demonstrate the alien’s prima facie (Latin for “first look at” – or “first sight”) for relief.  Therefore, simply on the basis of his first impressions, the immigration judge determined that the alien was not entitled to a hearing on the merits of his applications and denied his applications for relief. The Board struck down the immigration judge’s decision.  In its holding in E-F-H-L-, the Board referenced its prior holding in Matter of Fefe, 20 I&N Dec., 116 (BIA 1989). The Board held that even though the immigration judge has the authority to control the scope of an evidentiary hearing in the interest of efficiency, such authority must, at a minimum include an opportunity for the applicant to present evidence and witnesses in his or her own behalf. In Matter of Fefe, the Board found that “an essential aspect of the asylum adjudication process” required a full oral examination of the applicant.  This was necessary to protect the integrity of the asylum process itself, and provide fairness to the parties. In addition, a 9th Circuit case, Oshodi v. Holder, 729 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc – Latin for “before the entire court”) held that an alien’s fifth amendment due process right to a full and fair hearing was violated when the immigration judge denied relief solely on an adverse credibility finding after refusing to allow the alien to testify to the content of his applications. Under E-F-H-L-, and the prior Board decision in Matter of Fefe, as cited above, any move by the immigration judge to cut short a removal proceeding should be strongly and vigorously questioned and objections placed on the record for appeal. This includes an immigration judge’s decision to deny an applicant a full and fair hearing with presentation of witnesses and evidence, and an opportunity to present the applicant’s story, and be subject to direct and cross examination. The immigration judge cannot simply reject an applicant’s application based on an analysis that the applicant has not made a prima facie case for the relief sought.  Such reasoning is in violation of the immigration statute, applicable BIA precedential case law, and contrary to the due process protections in the United States Constitution. VIRTUAL PROCEEDINGS DO NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS The Act and its implementing regulations specifically provide for hearings via video conference. See section 240(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act (providing that a removal “proceeding may take place . . . through video conference”); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(c) (2020) (“An Immigration may conduct hearings through video conference to the same extent as he or she may conduct hearings in person.”). This authority has been consistently recognized by the courts of appeals. See Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir. 2012) (recognizing that video conference hearings are explicitly authorized by statute); Aslam v. Mukasey, 537 F.3d 110, 114 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (acknowledging that the statutory authority accorded to Immigration Judges to conduct hearings via video conference includes taking the testimony of witnesses); Rapheal v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 521, 531 (7th Cir. 2008) (stating that “Congress specifically authorized proceedings by means of a video conference” and rejecting the alien’s challenge to the constitutionality of the implementing regulation).

The list below [See updated here] has the link to the WebEx virtual Courtroom of each of the Immigration Judges in New York and a link to the full list of all the Immigration Judges in the US. There is also a dial-in number for each Immigration Judge for those who do not have access to a computer or have trouble connecting. NOTE: The automated system will show the location of the Court even if you have been scheduled for a virtual hearing. That does not mean you have to physically go to the Court at that address. You should still appear virtually. WHO IS MY JUDGE?If you lost your hearing notice or you can’t figure out who your Judge is then go to the EOIR Automated Case Status System and look up your A# (the 9 digit number with the letter “A” in front of it that appears on every document you received from immigration). Once you enter your A number and press submit it will show you information about your case including the date, time, location, and Immigration Judge. For information about how to use WebEx to attend an immigration court virtual hearing see our WebEx Virtual Hearing Guide. NEW YORK IMMIGRATION COURT WEBEX LINKS COURT LOCATION IMMIGRATION JUDGE WEBEX LINK New York – Broadway ACIJ Khalilah Taylor (KHT) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/ACIJ.Taylor   J. Thomas Bartleson (TSB) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Bartleson   Scott Bratton (STB) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Scott.Bratton   Noel A. Brennan (NB) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Brennan   John P. Burns (JHB) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Burns   Andrew M. Calvelli (AWC) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Calvelli   Olivia L. Cassin (OLC) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Cassin   Jess Christensen (JBC) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Christensen   Jennifer Chung (JCG) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Chung   Diane L. Dodd (DED) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Dodd   Robert L. Gundlach (RTG) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Gundlach   Edward P. Grogan (EGN) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Grogan   Carolyn L. Krasinski (CKI) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Krasinski   Brigitte Laforest (BLF) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Laforest   Shirley Lazare-Raphael (SLR) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Lazare-Raphael   Tanawa Lebreton (TAL) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Lebreton   Kalenna Lee (KNL) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Kalenna.Lee   Michael W. Lloyd (MLL) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Lloyd   James M. McCarthy (JMM) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.McCarthy   James R. McKee (JME) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.James.McKee   Maria Navarro (MEN) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Navarro   Carol Moore (CLM) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Carol.Moore   Adam Perl (APL) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Perl   Aviva Poczter (AVP) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Poczter   Douglas B. Schoppert (DBS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Schoppert New York – Federal Plaza ACIJ Megan Herndon (Acting) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/ACIJ.Herndon   Lori K. Adams (LIA) https://eoir.WebEx.com/meet/IJ.LoriAdams   Amit Chugh (AC2) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Chugh   Raisa Cohen (RAC) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Cohen   Carol A. Crawford (IJC) https://eoir.webEx.com/meet/IJ.Crawford   Kyle A. Dandelet (KED) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Dandelet   Evalyn P. Douchy (EPD) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Douchy   L. Batya Schwartz Ehrens (LES) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Ehrens   Samuel M. Factor (SAF) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Factor   Lauren F. Farber (LTF) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Farber   Lena Golovnin (LGN) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Golovnin   Cynthia Gordon (CYG) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Cynthia.Gordon    Vivienne E. Gordon-Uruakpa (VGU) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Vivienne.Gordon   Dorothy Harbeck (DH) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Harbeck   Amanda Jeannopoulos (AJS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Jeannopoulos    Carrie Johnson-Papillo (CCJ) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Johnson-Papillo   Amiena A. Khan (AAK) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Amiena.Khan   David Kim (DDK) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.David.Kim   Deborah E. Klahr (DKR) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Klahr   Theodora N. Kouris (TKS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Kouris   Frederic G. Leeds (FGL) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Leeds   Anna Little (ACL) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Little   F. James Loprest Jr. (JLP) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Loprest   Maria Lurye (MLY) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Lurye   Gioia Maiellano (GAM) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Gioia.Maiellano   William H. McDermott (WMD) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.William.McDermott   Michael G. McFarland (MMF) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.McFarland   Dania Nassar (DNA) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Dania.Nassar   Karen Nazaire (KAN) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Karen.Nazaire   Barbara A. Nelson (BAN) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Barbara.Nelson   Tiesha Peal (TAP) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Tiesha.Peal   Jonathan Reingold (JNR) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Jonathan.Reingold   Cathy Sagesse (CSE) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Sagesse   Alice Segal (ASL) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Segal   John J. Siemietkowski (JNS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Siemietkowski   Jem Sponzo (JCS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Sponzo   Scott E. Thomsen (STT) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Thomsen   Donald Thompson (DWT) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Donald.Thompson   Mimi Tsankov (MMT) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Tsankov   Virna Wright (VAW) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Wright   Randa Zagzoug (RZA) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Zagzoug Ulster ACIJ Brandon C. Jaroch (BNJ) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/ACIJ.Jaroch   Kyung Auh (KYA) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Auh   Charles M. Ouslander (CSO) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Ouslander   Roger Sagerman (RFS) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Sagerman New York – Varick ACIJ Ubaid ul-Haq (UUL) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/ACIJ.ul-Haq   Shayne R. Burnham (SEB) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Burnham   Charles R. Conroy (CC1) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Conroy   John DeCure (JDE) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.John.DeCure   Richard H. Drucker (RDD) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Drucker   Margaret Kolbe (MGK) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Kolbe   Lisa W. Ling (LLG) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Ling   Thomas Mulligan (TJM) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Mulligan   Thomas J. Mungoven (TSM) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Mungoven   David A. Norkin (DNO) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Norkin   Francisco R. Prieto (FPO) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Prieto   Dara F. Reid (DRD) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Reid   Themistoklis Aliferis (THA) https://eoir.webex.com/meet/IJ.Aliferis https://www.justice.gov/eoir/find-immigration-court-and-access-internet-based-hearings#NY Department of Justice Website with all EOIR WebEx links: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/find-immigration-court-and-access-internet-based-hearings

    A Notice to Appear (“NTA”) initiates removal proceedings by informing the immigrant respondent that they must appear in Immigration Court on a specific day to answer to a charge of removeability.     An NTA is issued as a standard DHS form, Form I-862. The statutory requirements of an NTA can be found at INA § 239 & 8 USC § 1229 as well as the regulatory requirements at 8 CFR §§ 1229 and 1239.1.     Every NTA should include the respondent’s identifying information,4 the nature of the proceedings, the charges of removability and supporting factual allegations, the date and place of removal proceedings, advisals of certain rights and responsibilities, and a certificate of service. The statute and regulations require DHS to include all this information in the NTA.     The NTA will specify the nature of the proceedings in a series of three check boxes under the Respondent’s name and address. The NTA will inform the individual if they are being charged as an “arriving alien,” an individual present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled, or someone who was admitted but is removable for the reasons stated.     In support of the charges of removability, DHS should also include on the NTA a list of factual allegations that establish the respondent’s alienage (their country of birth or nationality) and other facts that support the charges of removal. DHS sometimes uses information provided by the respondent in prior applications filed for immigration benefits or statements made to CBP, ICE, or USCIS officers. However, it is not uncommon for the NTA to allege erroneous or incomplete facts in a respondent’s case based on inaccurate or incomplete information provided by DHS databases or officers.     Finally, the NTA also contains a number of warnings and advisals to the respondent about their rights and responsibilities while in removal proceedings, such as the right to obtain counsel, the responsibility to inform the government of any change of address, and the consequences of failing to provide a change of address or failing to appear for a scheduled hearing.

See our full WebEx Virtual Hearing Guide here. The Department of Justice has several tables on their website which contain all the webex links for every Immigration Judge (throughout the country, I’m only focusing on New York). You can find that official master list of links at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/find-immigration-court-and-access-internet-based-hearings. If your hearing notice states that you have a virtual hearing then you are expected to attend the hearing by going to the link on that notice and appearing virtually. If the link on your hearing notice isn’t working, you lostost your hearing notice, or you just don’t feel like typing it in then you can find the webex link for each New York Immigration Judge below (these sometimes change so if it isn’t working then you can check the Department of Justice’s official list of webex links. Please note that even though it should not be possible, the webex links can sometimes be case sensitive . If you ever have an issue with a webex link check the case matches the link. You can find a list of all of the Immigration Judges’ WebEx links at the bottom of this guide or you can find them here. HOW TO ENTER THE VIRTUAL COURTROOM 1. Find your Immigration Judge in the list below and click on the link 2. Click “allow” if you get a pop-up asking you about cookies 3. Depending on your browser and its setting a download may start or you may be prompted asking if you want to start downloading–YOU DO NOT NEED TO DOWNLOAD WEBEX UNLESS YOU WANT TO. Feel free to download it if you want but if you dot then you are on your own and the rest of these steps won’t be any help for you. Webex works just as well from the browser and it’s a much easier way of getting to your virtual hearing. 4. I recommend using webex from your browser by clicking the link which will bring you to a login screen. You do not need to make an account. You just type in your name and email address, then type the letters in the “CAPTCHA” to prove you’re not a robot and you can enter. Doing this will only get you into the Courtroom it is not going to create an account and you will have to do this step each time you enter a webex courtroom. You usually don’t even get an email from webex since it is a one-time entry. If you have a hard time reading the weird CAPTCHA letters then you can click on the little speaker logo the arrow is pointing to in the picture and it will read the letters aloud through your computer speakers. This serves a dual purpose by also testing the volume of your computer speakers. 5. Click the “Next” button and it will bring you to a screen where you can test your camera to make sure it is working. 6. You will most likely get a prompt requiring you to give your browser access to your computer’s camera and microphone but it depends on your browser and its settings. 7. If your audio does not connect and you see a button that reads “connect audio” simply click the button and select “computer’s audio.” 8. Turn your camera on using the button on the bottom of the screen to test it. 9. If your camera is working and sound is connected then turn off your camera using the button on the bottom of the page and mute your microphone using the mute button. NOTE: You must keep your microphone muted until you are talking to the Judge or you will disturb the courtroom (even if you don’t make noise it will cause echoing). 10. To enter the virtual courtroom (after you turn off your camera and mute your microphone) click the green button that reads “join meeting.” 11. The following screen will be what the inside of the virtual courtroom looks like. Since it is against the law to take photos, videos, or record audio during an actual virtual hearing I had to make a meeting with no other participants to make this guide, which is why the screen shows my name instead of showing a video feed of the Judge and the DHS attorney (Assistant Chief Counsel). During your actual Court hearing you will see them on the screen and probably multiple other people like a translator and other attorneys. 12. Use the buttons on the bottom of the page to mute/unmute, turn camera on/off, or anything else. Once you are done you can press the red button with the “x” to leave the virtual courtroom. TESTING WEBEX PRIOR TO YOUR HEARING You can do a test on a day prior to your hearing using this special webex test meeting link. DO NOT USE THE WEBEX LINKS FOR IMMIGRATION COURT ANY TIME OTHER THAN WHEN YOU ARE SCHEDULED FOR YOUR HEARING. It will throw you into a virtual hearing of someone else. You may find yourself on the big screen in the Courtroom behind the Judge while they are in the middle of a really important case and it would not be fun. FIND IMMIGRATION JUDGE’S WEBEX LINK WHO IS MY JUDGE? If you lost your hearing notice or you can’t figure out who your Judge is then go to the EOIR Automated Case Status System and look up your A# (the 9 digit number with the letter “A” in front of it that appears on every document you received from immigration). Once you enter your A number and press submit it will show you information about your case including the date, time, location, and Immigration Judge. NOTE: The automated system will show the location of the Court even if you have been scheduled for a virtual hearing. That does not mean you have to physically go to the Court at that address. You should still appear virtually. NEW YORK IMMIGRATION COURT LINKS FOR VIRTUAL HEARINGS (VIA WEBEX) COURT LOCATION IMMIGRATION JUDGE WEBEX LINK OPEN CALL

The Circuit Court with jurisdiction over the geographical location of the Immigration Court will control. See Matter of Garcia, 28 I&N Dec. 693 (BIA 2023). For choice of law purposes, the controlling circuit law in Immigration Court proceedings is the law governing the geographic location of the Immigration Court where venue lies, namely where jurisdiction vests and proceedings commence upon the filing of a charging document, and will only change if an Immigration Judge subsequently grants a change of venue to another Immigration Court. Matter of R-C-R-, 28 I&N Dec. 74 (BIA 2020), clarified.

If you missed an immigration court hearing, you most likely received a removal order for being absent (an in absentia removal order). You can take to try to reopen your case but it is important that you file a motion to reopen as soon as possible. You are obligated to act as soon as you learn that you missed your hearing. I strongly suggest that you speak with an immigration attorney. You can get a free consultation with an attorney just to get their opinion on it. If you can afford to hire an attorney to assist you with this process then you probably should but if you simply can’t afford one and can’t find a pro bono attorney to take your case then you can certainly do it yourself. If you have a valid reason for why you could not make it to your hearing (you were in the hospital or in an accident) or if you never received notice of the hearing then you have grounds to reopen your hearing. You can use the template Motion to Reopen to explain to the Judge why you missed the hearing. If you did not receive a hearing notice then you should explain that in the motion and provide the Court with your current address to make sure they have your correct address on record. If you missed your hearing for some other reason you should provide evidence of your claim (hospital records, doctor letter, police report, or even just a letter from another person corroborating your story). Before you do anything make sure you check the immigration court automated case status system online or by phone to confirm. To check online, enter your A Number on this website. To check by phone, call 1-800-898-7180. If the system says that you received a removal order, it is still possible to try to reopen your case. You will need to file a “motion to reopen” with the immigration court. You should try to find a lawyer to help you with this process. Respondents represented by counsel are much more likely to succeed in immigration court. If you cannot find a pro bono attorney and cannot afford to hire counsel then you can file the motion to reopen yourself just to make sure it is filed as soon as possible. You can use this template motion to reopen from the immigration court.  If you want to try to reopen your case, it is important to begin this process immediately.