Page 25 - 2025 May June Magazine

My Foray Into
Immigration Court
By Judge Kitty-Ann van Doorninck, ret.
As a retired Superior Court Judge,
I thought I knew my way around
a courtroom. I was wrong when it
came to Immigration Court.
Unfamiliar with Immigration Law, I
signed on as a volunteer lawyer with the
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project
(NWIRP), a non-profit legal services
organization in Washington state.
NWIRP's mission is “to promote justice
by defending and advancing the rights of
immigrants through direct legal services,
systemic advocacy, and community.”1
Prior to November 2024, the Tacoma
office had three volunteer lawyers. Since
January 2025 the number has grown to
15, but the need for lawyers has increased
tremendously. The supervisor for pro
bono lawyers is amazingly dedicated,
helpful, and worked with me throughout
the entire process.
The Immigration Customs Enforcement
(ICE) Detention Facility, and the
Immigration courtrooms reside on
the Tacoma tideflats. Privately run by
Geo Group (a for-profit corporation)
on behalf of ICE, the facility houses a
maximum of 1575 people, one of the
largest ICE detention facilities in the
United States. Prior to January 20, 2025,
they held approximately 700 inmates.
As of the end of March, the facility has
reached capacity.
The ICE detention facility has an
architectural emphasis on concrete
and sequential locked doors. The many
guards and procedures created barriers
in accessing my client. This results
in unpredictable wait times, from 30
minutes to well over two hours. The
1 NWIRP Mission Statement
guards required my car keyfob to stay in
a secure locker. Ironically, the big locker
key seemed to be more dangerous than
my keyfob.
Appearing in Immigration Court requires
a simple online application then going in
person to provide an Immigration Court
with photo identification. Within a few
hours, I received an email with my ID
number.
NWIRP provided a short list of potential
clients, which included brief descriptions.
The story of one young Mexican woman
resonated with me. Twenty-one years old,
indigenous, she filed an application for
asylum pro se. The court set her asylum
hearing for six months away.
Ms. A’s application for asylum included
few details but stated she had experienced
domestic violence. Caselaw indicates that
domestic violence alone doesn’t qualify as
a basis for asylum, but depending on the
specific facts, asylum may be warranted.
At my first meeting, Ms. A. immediately
handed me a court document which
advanced the court hearing to only
three weeks away! With the assistance
of a volunteer interpreter, I elicited
important facts from Ms. A. Slowly and
tearfully, she disclosed (for the first time
to anyone) that her uncle had started
sexually abusing her at the age of seven.
She also witnessed significant domestic
violence between her parents before the
age of five. Her application for asylum
was based on domestic violence by her
boyfriend. However, I knew from caselaw
that childhood sexual abuse could bolster
the case. I found her story painful and
compelling.
Ms. A. did not want to “continue” the
hearing to the original date, 6 months
away. Being in detention caused her
extreme distress and an inability to sleep.
She witnessed the assault and subsequent
removal of an inmate in the middle of the
night. Her primary goal was to get out of
the ICE detention facility. With minimal
details, she explained that many guards
treated her inhumanely, while only a few
treated her kindly.
The Immigration Court Rules require
filing of court documents ten days prior
to the hearing. Pleadings consist of a
“Pre-hearing Statement,” a legal brief
documenting the reasons for the request
for asylum. In addition, an “Evidence
Packet” containing Ms. A’s Declaration as
well as any supporting declarations (none
in her case), and documents to support
“the country conditions.” These consisted
of State Department documents and other
scholarly articles, in her case, regarding
domestic violence against women in
Mexico. We filed our documents on-line
through the required “Executive Office
for Immigration Review” (EOIR).
After filing the pleadings, I met with
Ms. A several times. We reviewed
expectations of the trial, including that
the judge would likely interrupt and ask
his own questions. I repeatedly reassured
her of her strength and bravery in telling
her story. I also warned her, we didn’t
have a strong case.
At the three hour hearing, most of the
proceeding went as I expected. In these
cases, the respondent has the burden
to demonstrate entitlement to asylum.
Unsurprisingly, Ms. A. struggled with
talking about the childhood sexual
abuse, domestic violence, and fears of her
boyfriend retaliating. What surprised me
was the judge’s aggressive and sometimes
inappropriate questioning. For example,
“why” did her uncle sexually abuse her as
a child and “why” her boyfriend assaulted
her.
The legal result: petition for asylum
denied. Ms. A expressed gratitude for
my empathy and efforts to assist her.
ICE deported her after two weeks of
“processing.” I learned that deportation
involves transport by plane to a detention
facility in Arizona. ICE would then
escort her across the border, remove her
handcuffs and release her.
People detained by ICE do not have the
right to an attorney, right to a speedy
hearing, right to bond, or any of the other
protections that U.S. citizens have. There
is a huge need for volunteer attorneys.
Please contact Northwest Immigrant
Rights Project if you have the ability to
take a case. I assure you, it is a humbling
and gratifying experience.
www.nwirp.org
Kitty-Ann van Doorninck is a retired Pierce
County Superior Court Judge (1998-2022)
M a y /J u n e 2 0 2 5 | P I E R C E C O U N T Y L A W Y E R 2 5