Analyzing the leading source of data on who gets removed (aka deported) from the United States, it’s clear what’s going on.

HINT: It’s not people who committed crimes. In fact, removal cases stemming from criminal convictions (apart from illegal entry) account for only 8% of all removal cases initiated.

It’s people who don’t get a lawyer.

UNREPRESENTED PEOPLE GET REMOVED

Consider this:

Of all people ordered removed, 78.5% were unrepresented.

Of all persons who were granted affirmative relief, 90.8% had a lawyer.

Unrepresented People Are Less Likely to Get Other Favorable Outcomes Too

There are a few other possible outcomes in immigration court, and having a lawyer made a dramatic difference there too.

One possibility is that the government agrees to terminate the proceedings. Of cases that ended in termination, 80% had a lawyer.

Another is voluntary departure, where the individual agrees to leave in exchange for (sometimes) lower bars to lawful re-entry in the future. In cases where voluntary departure was granted, 60.9% had a lawyer.

The only place where unrepresented respondents had a fair chance was in a category called “Other Closure.” This typically means administrative closure, where an immigration judge pauses proceedings indefinitely, usually because the respondent has a valid visa application pending before USCIS (a different agency with separate jurisdiction). In cases ending in “Other Closure,” 54% of respondents were unrepresented.

(It’s worth noting that the numbers of Other Closures dropped off dramatically during the Trump Administration, when a decision by Attorney General Sessions severely restricted immigration judges’ power to grant administrative closure. That decision that was later reversed by some U.S. Courts of Appeals and, eventually, vacated by Attorney General Garland, but could be reinstated by a new administration in a heartbeat.)

There’s No Right to Have a Lawyer Provided for You in Immigration Court

Even though removal can have more dire consequences for some respondents than a criminal penalty would, respondents have no right to have an attorney appointed for them if they cannot afford one.

There is a bill pending, the Fairness to Freedom Act of 2023, that would provide for appointment of counsel for indigent respondents. Even though 86% of voters think such a right should exist, I’m not holding my breath on that passing any time soon (call me cynical).

Need for an entrepreneurship Solution

If Congress won’t act, maybe we need to. Could some enterprising social entrepreneur find a way to make a real dent in the number of unrepresented respondents in immigration court? Perhaps by making meaningful training available for lawyers who would take a case to satisfy pro bono commitments? Or producing a much-needed product and channeling a significant percentage of profits toward funding lawyers who take removal cases?

This is just one problem that Congress doesn’t want to fix. Maybe it’s time for enterprising legal minds to go to work solving problems like this, either on their own or in partnership with other entrepreneurs?