Received 2 scheduling orders today from the KC Immigration Court under the "enhanced case flow processing" memo. Both are signed by the Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, not the IJ assigned to the case. The cover letter says they're issued by the "ACIJ"

The order says respondent has to file a written pleading, "evidence related to the issue of removability" and all applications for relief within 45 days. The written pleading must include a series of statements waiving the requirements of 8 CFR 1240.10

The order says DHS can file a "response" to that submission within 10 days of respondent's filing (since DHS has the burden of proof, that's odd to say the least). It also says the advisals the IJ is required to give under 1240.10 are being given in writing.

Finally, if you plan to contest the scheduling order, hold the government to its burden, not submit applications for relief until removability has been determined as the regulations require, etc., the court may conclude you've abandoned your right to apply for relief from removal

So, if you plan to oppose this kind of order, what are your options? Under the updated practice manual, you can file a motion for a master calendar hearing. But that filing alone doesn't stay this deadline. So if the judge doesn't rule in time, you still have to file all of this.

45 days is not enough time if there are evidentiary issues with removability, if we need to obtain subpoenas, if we have a pending FOIA request, etc. Especially during COVID when much of the world is still shut down.

But in these cases the orders make even less sense - as @immlawACHall observed in his cases last week - we already entered pleadings and filed applications for relief over a year ago. These orders aren't tailored to the actual case. So, do we file all of that again?