Are sentencing guidelines different?

Sentencing guidelines are issued under the authority of a committee that was set up by a law. I doubt that these are those, since this doesn't deal with actual sentencing.

It's not even like "guidance," the kind of thing that (R) have made a big deal about being so bad in the past and which (D) used to defend as the (R) revoked the "guidance" documents.

These are for immigration courts. They're administrative courts. We have the federal judiciary but we have a whole mass of extra-constitutional courts. They put people in jail. They administer fines. They seize property or order deportation. They have their own kinds of rules of procedure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Office_for_Immigration_Review

See also https://supportkind.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Chapter-3-The-Immigration-Court-System.pdf .

Some people have long objected to this sort of dual-track court system. For many, it's only a problem when their particular ox is being gored.

Such courts are subject to federal court review. But it's separate litigation, arguing that the administrative procedure being used violates the Constitution or the law--in other words, that the administration's rules and decisions are in error. And, yes, this system has been found to be Constitutional, so "un-Constitutional" isn't the right word for it.

Then again, agencies that are neither executive, congressional, nor judicial also exist. And there are executive agencies which, in spite of the fact that they're executive, derive their executive authority from Congress. It was "necessary" at the time to redefine some words in really strange ways. So not all courts are judicial, not all executive agencies are executive, and we've even found that not all de-facto laws are legislative. It would be shock to actually impose the Constitutional order, as written.



Then there's "fair" in the OP. We hear about all kinds of things being "fair" or "unfair". "X need to pay their fair share." "This law isn't fair." "It's unfair for courts to make this ruling." "This process is unfair."

Nobody cares about seeking a consensus meaning of the word when they're pontificating and trying to get their opinion imposed on others in the name of fairness. It's only a problem when somebody *else* decides that *their* meaning of the word is important and takes precedence. Then it's all, "Who said *you* get to define the word?" One of the New 10 Commandments is, "Thou shalt commit hypocrisy."

I seldom take new converts to such debates seriously, whatever their zeal. Typically, they're the opponent of holding that kind of debate as long as they're winning. I personally find that kind of flip-flop, well, unfair.

Very much appreciated

who are Federal employees.

'An administrative law judge (ALJ) in the United States is a judge and trier of fact who both presides over trials and adjudicates the claims or disputes (in other words, ALJ-controlled proceedings are bench trials) involving administrative law.

ALJs can administer oaths, take testimony, rule on questions of evidence, and make factual and legal determinations.[1] And depending upon the agency's jurisdiction, proceedings may have complex multi-party adjudication, as is the case with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or simplified and less formal procedures, as is the case with the Social Security Administration.

The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA) requires that federal ALJs be appointed based on scores achieved in a comprehensive testing procedure, including a four-hour written examination and an oral examination before a panel that includes an Office of Personnel Management representative, an American Bar Association representative, and a sitting federal ALJ. Federal ALJs are the only merit-based judicial corps in the United States.[2]

In American administrative law, ALJs are Article I judges under the U.S. Constitution. As such, they do not exercise full judicial power, essentially, the power over life, liberty, and property.'>>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law_judge