The Inspector-General over the US Department of Justice just exposed what might turn out to be radical activists, who called themselves Immigrations lawyers to testify to the Department of Homeland Security, who may or may not have been trustworthy lawyers in command of Immigration law.
A recent report from Monday showed that many applications that were approved for experts to appear before the DHS, had incomplete training records, did not conduct criminal history checks for program participants, their application files did not contain a recommendation from DHS, and the proper federal agencies did not review complaints about accredited representatives in a timely manner, potentially increasing the risk that unqualified representatives continue to practice immigration law.
PERHAPS SOMEONE LIKE THIS?
Activist lawyers may or may not have legal backgrounds, it is an tactic that the left uses to override voters and elected lawmakers.
There are numerous grassroots marketing platforms for the purpose of appearing to be Immigration lawyers.
“This Program,[Executive Office for Immigration] authorizes eligible organizations and their representatives, who are not attorneys, to practice immigration law before the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),” Michael Horowitz wrote.
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a 36 page report titled, Audit of the Executive Office for Immigration Review Recognition and Accreditation Program.
According to the report:
Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz announced today the release of a report examining the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (EOIR) Recognition and Accreditation Program (Program). This Program, administered by EOIR’s Office of Legal Access Programs (OLAP), authorizes eligible organizations (recognized organizations) and their representatives (accredited representatives), who are not attorneys, to practice immigration law before the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and EOIR.
The DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) determined that OLAP implements controls for approving or rejecting Program applications, monitoring accredited representative activities, and investigating allegations of misconduct against accredited representatives. However, we identified varying degrees of weakness in these controls, as well as opportunities for OLAP to improve its oversight and administration of the Program. Some of the specific findings in the report released today include:
• EOIR was unable to fully demonstrate that Program approval or rejection decisions as well as
participant monitoring were made in accordance with federal or other Program requirements. For
example, we found that many applications had incomplete training records, which are required by
• More than one-third of the application files did not contain a recommendation from DHS, which is a
best practice relied upon by OLAP when making Program eligibility decisions. We believe that a lack
of recommendation from DHS poses an increased risk that ineligible applicants will be admitted into
• OLAP did not conduct criminal history checks for Program participants, which, if conducted, could
have assisted in assessing an applicant’s character and fitness to perform their duties.
• EOIR did not review complaints about accredited representatives in a timely manner, potentially
increasing the risk that unqualified representatives continue to practice immigration law.
Today’s report makes six recommendations to assist EOIR in improving its oversight and administration of
the Program. EOIR agreed with all six recommendations.
Report: Today’s report is available on the OIG’s website under
the OIG released 6 Recommandations on how to clean that up, that are all in the report above.