Removing Judges: The Cases of Immigration Judges Jeffrey Chase and Noel Ferris*

By Hurwitz, Mark S. | Justice System Journal, January 1, 2010 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Removing Judges: The Cases of Immigration Judges Jeffrey Chase and Noel Ferris*

Hurwitz, Mark S., Justice System Journal

In the past few years the Second Circuit took the extraordinary step of removing two immigration judges from cases for evincing inappropriate behavior and conduct toward asylum seekers in their courts. As a consequence, in each case the Second Circuit vacated and remanded these judges' decisions and ordered that further proceedings continue before different immigration judges. While the two cases are factually different, and indeed the behavior of one of these immigration judges seems somewhat more egregious than the other, they are remarkable in that removal of judges for inappropriate conduct is not all that common a remedy.

Immigration Judge Jeffrey Chase. Aboubacar Ba, a citizen of Mauritania, sought asylum in the United States, as well as withholding of removal and relief under the Convention of Torture. After an administrative review of his case, Immigration Judge (IJ) Jeffrey Chase denied Ba's application, a decision affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the final level of administrative review of immigration cases (No. A95 476 650 (B.I.A. Aug. 22, 2005), aff'gNo. A95 476 650 (Immig. Ct. N. Y. City Mar. 26, 2004)). The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the BIA's decision in Aboubacar Ba v. Gonzaks (228 Fed. Appx. 7, 2007) and held in a summary order that the case be remanded to the agency. Presiding over the case were Circuit Judges Robert Katzmann and Peter Hall, and District Judge David Trager sitting by designation.

While the Second Circuit listed a number of reasons on the merits for its decision to remand, what made this decision remarkable, however, was not the remand itself. Instead, the Ba opinion stands out for the court's public rebuke of IJ Chase. In particular, the Second Circuit ordered that all further proceedings in the Ba case not be held before IJ Chase. Additionally, due to numerous lapses in IJ Chase's judgment that raised doubts about the fairness of other immigration proceedings before him, the court further stated, "[I] t may improve judicial efficiency if, as discussed at oral argument, the BIA, sua sponte, closely re-examined all of [IJ Chase's] cases that are still on appeal" (at 11).

The Second Circuit began its review by stating that the standard of review of the agency's findings is based on the substantial- evidence standard. Expressing its disillusionment with IJ Chase, the court then qualified this standard of review by stating, "[W] e will vacate and remand for new findings if the agency's reasoning or its fact-finding process was sufficiently flawed" (at 9). The court then stated that IJ Chase's findings did not comport with the substantial- evidence standard. Additionally, his decision "contained a plethora of errors and omissions" (at 10). For these reasons, the court remanded the case for further proceedings before a different immigration judge.

Moving beyond the merits, Judge Katzmann then chided IJ Chase for inappropriate demeanor and comments during Ba's hearing. Most galling to the court was a question IJ Chase asked of Ba that implicated the attorney- client privilege: "Regardless of the relevance of the inquiry and the answer, it is inconceivable that IJ Chase, as a judge and lawyer, would not know the impropriety of that question" (at 11). His questions and actions clearly diminished the appearance of impartiality of the proceeding in the eyes of the Second Circuit.

Critically, this was not the first occasion in which the Second Circuit reprimanded IJ Chase. The court cited two prior cases in which IJ Chase was rebuked for his behavior in published opinions. In Guo-Le Huang v. Geniales, 453 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2006), a case unmistakably similar to the Ba case, the Second Circuit described IJ Chase's behavior as wholly inappropriate. "[T] his is the rare case where remand is required because of the IJ's apparent bias and hostility toward Huang. The hearings included several instances of questioning by the IJ that were at least inappropriate and at worst indicative of bias against Chinese witnesses" (at 150).

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Removing Judges: The Cases of Immigration Judges Jeffrey Chase and Noel Ferris*


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?