|
November
28, 2000
Prosecutorial
Discretion Guidelines
The use of prosecutorial discretion by the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in
deciding which cases to pursue has received
increased attention since passage of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
in 1996. Part of this legislation limited the
authority of immigration judges to provide relief
from removal in many cases, and persons facing
removal have sought to avoid removal by other means,
including prosecutorial discretion from INS.
Prosecutorial discretion is the authority that
every law enforcement agency has to decide whether
to exercise its enforcement powers against someone.
INS, like other law enforcement agencies, has
prosecutorial discretion and exercises it every day.
In the immigration context, the term applies not
only to the decision to issue, serve or file a
Notice to Appear (NTA) when starting removal
proceedings, but also to a broad range of other
discretionary enforcement decisions. These include
focusing investigative resources on particular
offenses or conduct; deciding whom to stop, question
and arrest; deciding whether to detain certain
aliens in custody; settling or dismissing a removal
proceeding; granting deferred action or staying a
final removal order; agreeing to voluntary
departure, permitting withdrawal of an application
for admission, or taking other action in lieu of
removing an alien; pursuing an appeal; or executing
a removal order.
While INS can refrain from exercising its law
enforcement authority against a particular person on
a case-by-case basis, it cannot regularize someone's
immigration status or grant a benefit that an alien
is not legally entitled to receive. For example, INS
has no discretion to admit into the United States an
alien who is inadmissible and cannot adjust the
status of a person who isn't qualified for
adjustment. INS has prosecutorial discretion not to
place a removable alien in removal proceedings, but
it does not have prosecutorial discretion to approve
a naturalization application by an alien who is
ineligible for that benefit under the Immigration
and Nationality Act.
Exercising prosecutorial discretion does not
lessen INS commitment to enforce the immigration
laws to the best of the agency's ability. It is not
an invitation to violate or ignore the law. Rather,
it is a means to use the agency's resources in a way
that best accomplishes INS' mission of administering
and enforcing the immigration laws of the United
States.
Factors Used in
Determining Use of Prosecutorial Discretion
The factors that can be taken into account in
deciding whether to exercise prosecutorial
discretion favorably include the following:
Immigration status
Length of residence in the United States
Criminal history
Humanitarian concerns
Immigration history
Likelihood of ultimately removing the alien
Likelihood of achieving enforcement goal by
other means
Whether the alien is eligible or is likely to
become eligible for other relief
Effect of action on future admissibility
Current or past cooperation with law
enforcement authorities
Honorable U.S. military service
Community attention
Resources available to INS
Impact of
Prosecutorial Discretion
Prosecutorial discretion is not a full or
adequate substitute for the forms of relief
previously available from an immigration judge prior
to the changes in the law in 1996. In many cases,
the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by INS
leaves a person in limbo, at risk of future
immigration enforcement action and unable to travel
outside the United States without the fear of being
denied readmission.
Although it is INS policy that a favorable
exercise of discretion by an INS office should be
respected by other INS offices unless the facts and
circumstances have changed, the exercise of
prosecutorial discretion does not grant a lawful
status under the immigration laws, and there is no
legally enforceable right to the exercise of
prosecutorial discretion.
Ultimately, INS believes that a complete solution
requires legislation to restore, to certain aliens
affected by the 1996 changes, the possibility of a
grant of relief by immigration judges during the
removal process.
INS
|