Do you have some basis for saying that beyond your personal experience and perception? Can you document your claim that, globally, "a removal order in abstentia is not issued in most no show cases?"
Well, John - since I am one of those "experts" in the field, my personal experience actually does matter..
In ten years of viewing literally tens of thousands of cases for 9A and 9B ineligibilities, a good chunk of them from El Salvador, I can count on one hand how many failures to show resulted in an actual deport order on the first sitting.
Feel free to research the dockets of our immigration courts and you'll see it as well.
Also - OF COURSE people show up for asylum hearings. asylum claims are a small portion of the catch and release population. AND - when they show up for an asylum hearing and are found to be frivolous or having a no claim, they are THEN released again, pending an actual status hearing, for which they do not show up.
Bad data is what you posted.
Well, you'll have to excuse me but I'll go with what appears to be going on with the guy who wrote the article at https://cis.org/Report/Courting-Disaster
. He is a former immigration court judge. Also, he was arguing that the failure to appear rate is higher than Justice Department statistics suggest. But he argued that the rate is 37%. Also, as far as I can tell, he is accepting the in abstentia
rate as the "failure to appear" rate. His argument is data based. Not a general impression based on his personal experience. And though he is arguing that the failure to appear rate is high the rate he is talking about, if anywhere close to accurate, means the statement that most illegal aliens don't show up for their hearings is false.
His big argument isn't about the in abstentia
rate as reported by the Department of Justice not being a good metric for failure to appear. It's about counting detained aliens in the equation. In other words, he wrote that the problem is dividing the in abstentia
rate by ALL illegals with hearings when it should be dividing it just by those who are released prior to their hearings. I think that makes perfect sense.
But it still appears to contradict your point of view. If it does not please explain.