March 29, 2004
EOIR Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Gail
Padgett’s response to Loretta Schloerb’s
complaint
(Also See: "Caring" EOIR Immigration Judge Lets Convicted Child
Molester Keep Green Card)
U.S Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration
Review
Office of the Chief Immigration
Judge
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2500
Falls Church, Virginia
March 15, 2004
Dear Ms. Schloerb,
Your letter dated January 16, 2004,
received in the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ)
on February 2, 2004, was assigned to me for response.
In your letter you complained about the way Immigration
Judge William Strasser of the Newark, New Jersey
Immigration Court, conducted hearings involving Jose
Barrios Castilla. You stated that you found Judge
Strasser’s comments and actions to be unprofessional,
disturbing, and offensive. You stated that you attended
four hearings that occurred on September 30, October 9,
November 14, and December 5, 2003. You also stated
complaints about the questions the judge asked of you
and your daughters, the questions the Judge asked of
other witnesses, the limits the judge placed on certain
testimony, and statements the judge made while taking
testimony and during his oral decision.
As a result of your complaint I
listened to the more than fifteen hours of audio
recorded for the hearings presided over by Judge
Strasser for the dates of September 30, October 7,
November 14, and December 5, 2003. There was no record
of hearings on October 9, 2003, in the Barrios Castilla
case.
I found the judge’s conduct in the
hearings to be completely professional. I found his
questioning of you and your daughters to be not only
professional but extremely patient, courteous and
solicitous. During his questioning of your daughters he
was particularly attentive, considerate and concerned
for their well-being. He appeared to have a great deal
of awareness of the stress they were under in having to
give what I am sure to them was very disturbing
testimony about the incidents they had experienced. He
obviously paid very close attention to not only what
they said but how the testimony affected them. He
offered recesses whenever a witness appeared too
distraught to go on. The judge consistently spoke in a
low, mild tone of voice and took every opportunity
available to explain to you and your daughters what he
needed to hear from you and your daughters, why he
needed to hear it, and what he had to do with the
information you gave.
I disagree with your
characterization of the judge’s conduct as
unprofessional, disturbing, and offensive. To the
contrary I found his conduct throughout the entire
record for the four hearings in question to have been
very professional, appropriate, and caring.
I am very sorry that you and your
daughters had to bring back very bad memories from a
time in your lives that I’m sure all three of you would
rather have never experienced. Unfortunately, that
became necessary when you became witnesses in the case.
Because you were witnesses, you were necessarily
excluded from most of the hearings except when you were
on the witness stand. Having now reviewed all of the
record for the four days of hearings, I believe the
judge was sympathetic to the plight of you and your
daughters. He tried to make the experience of
testifying as stress free as possible, and yet gather
all the information needed to reach an informed
decision.
I appreciate your interest in this
case and in the immigration process in general. If you
are not satisfied with this response you may forward
your concerns to the Office of Professional
Responsibility, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC 20530.
Sincerely,
Gail Padgett
Assistant Chief Immigration Judge
Juan Mann [send him
email] is a lawyer and the proprietor of
DeportAliens.com.
