Immigration Proceedings both administrative as well as those brought before Federal Immigration Courts are considered "more relaxed" than regular Federal Court proceedings, and therefore require virtually zero standards for submission of evidence.
Navarrette-Navarrette v. Landon, 223 F.2d 234, 237 (9th Cir. 1955): stating that “administrative tribunals may receive evidence which a court would regard as legally insufficient”.
In other words, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Agency Officers and Federal Immigration Courts perform adjudications of immigrant applications, determining which foreign individuals (including potential terrorists) are granted access to enter the United States and/or remain in the United States based upon evidence which ANY OTHER FEDERAL COURT would regard as LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, including:
- Hearsay arguments that would otherwise be inadmissible in federal courts
- Other Evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible in federal courts
Administrative agencies are not only allowed to admit hearsay and other inadmissible evidence, but under the Administrative Procedures Act, are required to admit and consider such evidence. Hearsay arguments may include (but are not limited to): statements from friends, relatives, employers, special interest groups or paid individuals acting for financial gain, all of which are considered admissible and relied upon within immigration adjudication proceedings. Other Evidence may include: anything.
The subject named within such hearsay and other evidence (ie. U.S. Citizen Sponsor, other accused, etc.) is never allowed to:
- View the statements said about him or her
- Provide evidence to the contrary or evidence proving complete fabrication
- Provide witness statements to the contrary
- Cross-examine any witnesses
Therefore, all hearsay and other evidence goes unchallenged and unverified by the subject(s) named within those statements. The ease by which an individual may completely fabricate evidence and submit it to USCIS, without any fear of detection, is frightening. Some examples include:
Screen shots of text messages are admissible. This means, an individual could simply change their friend's contact name to another individual's name (ie. the accused) within their phone. Then have their friend send harassing text messages to the immigrant's phone, and suddenly the immigrant has evidence of abuse, as all the harassing text messages were from the accused, according to the screen shot, and such harassment would meet the standard needed to obtain a VAWA waiver or U-visa.
Screen shots of facebook or other social media accounts are admissible. This means, an individual is capable of creating false accounts, representing another individual (ie. the accused), then send messages to their own account from the fake account to make it appear as though harassment, or other statements/conversations have been made supporting their case. Again, this is all that is needed to obtain a VAWA waiver, a U-visa, or other waivers needing "proof" of certain elements of a relationship.
Any document is admissible. Forged Legal Documents are easily purchased from home countries or created with a simple word document. Anything from transfer of ownership, joint purchases, joint lease, financial statements, bank accounts, etc. can all be created easily through the use of readily available technology.
Any statements made by any individual are admissible. Immigrants can easily pay a friend, neighbor, stranger or service provider, to make ANY statement they wish, without any fear of it EVER being investigated or cross-examined. The immigrant can, create their OWN statement or documents, use forged signatures, or completely fabricate an individual, an expert, doctor, psychologist, coach, employer statement, etc., sign it, and submit it to USCIS. This includes any false and fabricated claims of neglect, which are sufficient enough to reward an immigrant with a VAWA waiver or U-Visa.
I REITERATE: An immigrant, can say anything, or have anyone else, say anything, about YOU (yes You!). USCIS may have information on you personally without your knowledge, and if you ask, you will be denied any access to the accusations and have no ability to refute the false information. You will be denied complete access to ANYTHING USCIS maintains on you, including false allegations and fabricated evidence because USCIS intentionally places your information into an alien file, so as to claim that such information "pertains to" ONLY the immigrant and not you. More on USCIS Privacy Act and Civil Rights violations, denying U.S. Citizens information without alien approval found here.
The Government is well aware of the situation at hand. The Immigration Law Advisor Vol. 4 No. 5., published by the Department of Justice states, "It is well settled that the Federal Rules of Evidence are not binding in immigration proceedings and that evidentiary considerations are more relaxed in Immigration Court than in Federal court." See, e.g., Matter of De Vera, 16 I&N Dec. 266, 268-69 (BIA 1977).
The publication goes on to say "In Federal court, [differing from immigration court and proceedings] expert reports are considered inadmissible hearsay, and the testifying expert must present his opinions by oral testimony under oath at a deposition or at trial unless the court provides otherwise. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). Also, the expert generally must submit a signed written report that contains a complete statement of the facts and data the expert relied upon and the expert’s statement of opinions and reasons for them, as well as the expert’s qualifications, publications within the past 10 years, other testimony in the past 4 years, and amount of compensation. Id.; see also Fed. R. Evid. 703, 704." Within an immigration proceeding, however, such evidence is accepted without cross-examination or oral argument, and statements made without being under oath.
The same publication then states, "These procedural differences between Federal court and immigration proceedings is consistent with the more relaxed standard regarding the admissibility of evidence in Immigration Court compared to the Federal rules." And who wouldn't want a more relaxed standard when the cases at hand determine whether a foreign individual who could potentially be a terrorist, should be granted entry into the United States?
Clearly, the system itself, is at the root of all other problems associated with immigration-related crimes and abuses. Without a fair and just system, no reasonable individual can have ANY CONFIDENCE in our current immigration system, or the ability of the United States to properly vet individuals, and make determinations which directly impact the security of the United States.
Before any other actions: amnesty, waivers, DACA/DAPA, mass deportations, general enforcement of current laws, sanctuary cities, federal withholding of funds, more funds, no refugees, more refugees, more visas, more green cards, less visas, less green cards, etc. before ANY CHANGES are made, the current system itself and the way in which proceedings are held, MUST be corrected to ensure a fair and just process. It is in vain, that all other actions would be taken, when the proceedings which ultimately determine the outcome of such actions are so inherently corrupt they are incapable of weeding out security threats and fraud.