Mahir Ahmed really wants you to know that he’s a “legitimate” asylum seeker. Not like those other people who are “deliberately breaking U.S. laws” and “jumping in line” ahead of good people like him. To confront this crisis, which has delayed a decision in his case, Mr. Ahmed declares his support for President Trump’s border wall.
I have some sympathy for Mr. Ahmed ‘s frustration at the slow pace of his case, since many of my clients are similarly delayed. But his desire to slam the door on certain asylum seekers who he considers illegitimate demonstrates a deep ignorance of our asylum system, not to mention a profound arrogance about his own moral standing.
First, let’s take a look at Mr. Ahmed’s “legitimate” asylum case. Mr. Ahmed is from Ethiopia. He was born Muslim, in a “community that is virtually 100 percent Muslim.” After he came to the U.S. (legally!), he converted to Christianity. He writes that his “decision to leave and criticize Islam publicly forced me to resort to asylum.”
As an asylum lawyer, I have done apostasy cases from many countries. In some places, apostasy is illegal, and can be punished by death. Ethiopia is not one of those places. In fact, Ethiopia is mostly Christian, and while Mr. Ahmed’s community may be “virtually 100 percent Muslim,” his country is only 34% Muslim. This means internal relocation is a real possibility. If Mr. Ahmed can live safely in some other part of Ethiopia, he is ineligible for asylum. Further, it is unlikely that Mr. Ahmed fears persecution from the Ethiopian authorities, and so if the government can protect him from his Muslim community, he would also be ineligible for asylum. This is not to say that his claim is illegitimate, but an apostate from a country like Iran, Pakistan or Afghanistan might consider Mr. Ahmed to be unfairly blocking up the asylum system when he could potentially live safely in his own country. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Or something like that.
Now let’s take a look at some of Mr. Ahmed’s claims about these “law breaking” asylum seekers who have supposedly delayed the decision in his case. In fact, Mr. Ahmed was one of the lucky asylum seekers who received an interview quickly, based on LIFO. The Asylum Officer told him to return two weeks after the interview to collect his decision. Mr. Ahmed was excited: “You can imagine how thrilled I was knowing that no matter what the decision was, it would all be over within two months of filing. No more worrying, wondering, and being in limbo.” But then, the Officer called and informed Mr. Ahmed that he could not pick up the decision after all; it would come by mail. He “was told they have no idea when [the decision would be made] and that the fact that I had legal status might be a factor in the delay since priority is being given to illegal immigrants.” Mr. Ahmed was shocked: “I couldn’t believe that illegal immigrants would be given higher priority than someone who followed the law. It just seemed unfair to me that jumping in line would put you ahead.” More than seven months later, Mr. Ahmed is still waiting for a decision.
After doing a bit of research, Mr. Ahmed found that since the time he filed his case, “more than 460,000 illegal crossings took place” at the Southern border. The “vast majority of the crossers claimed asylum and basically got priority processing over everyone who filed their cases legally, myself included.” “That is exactly why I’m for the border wall,” he writes. “True asylum seekers will still be able to file for asylum at the ports of entry [and] maybe even in their home countries soon,” if a proposed anti-asylum bill becomes law.
There’s a lot to unpack here, and we only have time to address the major points of Mr. Ahmed’s thesis. Let’s start with his data–the 460,000 “illegal crossings.” If you look at his source for this number (Customs and Border Protection or CBP), you will see that this figure represents people “apprehended between points of entry” from October 2018 through April 2019. While Mr. Ahmed writes that the “vast majority” of these border crossers claimed asylum, a review of the latest asylum office data reveals a different story. During this period, about 70,000 people sought credible or reasonable fear interviews, which indicates their desire to apply for asylum at the U.S. border (this is an estimate since the asylum office data is not as current as the CBP data). Thus, even assuming Mr. Ahmed is correct that these “illegal crossers” are jumping ahead of him in line, the number of line jumpers is “only” about 70,000; not 460,000.
Regardless of the statistics, Mr. Ahmed misses a more fundamental point: The law makes no distinction between “legal” and “illegal” asylum seekers. It is legal to arrive at the border (at a point of entry or elsewhere) and seek asylum. It is also legal to enter the U.S. without inspection and file for asylum. The relevant legal statute, INA § 208(a)(1), states that “Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival….), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum.” And so these “illegal immigrants” that so concern Mr. Ahmed have the exact same legal right to file for asylum as he does.
Do “illegal immigrants” jump ahead of the line? Do they get priority over “legal immigrants,” such as Mr. Ahmed? In one sense, they do. When an alien arrives at the border and expresses a fear of return, she receives a credible fear interview or CFI (or if she was previously in the U.S., she receives a reasonable fear interview). This is an initial evaluation of asylum eligibility. Such interviews receive priority over “regular” asylum cases. The large number of CFIs in recent years is a major contributor to the backlog of asylum cases. In Mr. Ahmed’s case, however, he received an interview within a few months of filing. In other words, his case did not fall into the backlog. Thus, unlike other asylum seekers who filed and did not receive a timely interview, Mr. Ahmed’s case was not delayed due to “illegal immigrants” receiving CFIs.
Even for those “regular” asylum seekers who land in the backlog, I do not see how they have much basis to complain about CFIs. This is the system our country created to enforce its humanitarian immigration law. CFIs get priority because those applicants must either be approved and sent to Immigration Court for a full asylum hearing, or denied and deported quickly. If anything, people seeking asylum at the border need more protection than asylum applicants who are already in the U.S., since the latter are in no immediate danger of being returned to a country where they face persecution. As such, it makes sense to adjudicate CFIs first.
Mr. Ahmed also claims that a decision in his case was delayed because USCIS gives priority to “illegal immigrants.” He references a USCIS webpage, which indicates that “longer processing times may be required if you… are currently in valid immigration status.” First of all, this website lists several different reasons for post-interview delay, including “pending security checks” and headquarters review, which are common reasons for post-interview delay (especially, as far as I can tell, for cases involving Muslim–or formerly Muslim–men). Second, the reason a “legal” immigrant’s case may be slower than that of an “illegal” immigrant is because it requires more work to deny such a case. People in legal status receive a detailed Notice of Intent to Deny letter. People who are out of status receive a much less detailed Referral letter. Since it takes more work to create a NOID, it makes sense that such cases takes longer. A final note on this point: I have done many cases for people who are in status, out of status, and who have entered the U.S. illegally. At least in my anecdotal experience, I see no pattern of differences in processing times, and so I doubt that “illegal” cases are processed any faster than “legal” ones.
Based on his analysis, Mr. Ahmed endorses a border wall as a way to help “legitimate” asylum seekers like himself. But this “solution” has no relationship to the problem. If you want to prevent “illegal” aliens from seeking asylum, you need to change the law that allows such people to seek asylum. Perhaps by building a wall and increasing punitive measures, you can deter asylum seekers from coming here. This would help reduce the backlog (at the expense of our nation’s integrity), but you could achieve the same ends (more cheaply) by simply blocking aliens from coming here legally. If fewer people come here, fewer will ask for asylum. Indeed, the Trump Administration is trying to make it more difficult to obtain a visa if you come from a country that tends to produce visa overstays (had it been in place when he came to the U.S., this rule may very well have blocked Mr. Ahmed from coming here).
The bottom line for me is this: Anyone who reaches the U.S. and fears return to his country is a legitimate asylum seeker, and deserves to have his case carefully reviewed. Mr. Ahmed’s effort to distinguish himself from asylum applicants at the Southern border represents a basic misunderstanding of our country’s humanitarian immigration system and the values that that system represents. This is a difficult time for asylum seekers, and sometimes, among desperate people, there is an inclination to attack each other. Mr. Ahmed should resist this temptation. Instead of undermining his fellow asylum seekers, he should stand together with them. By supporting each other, we can improve the asylum system for all.
They crossed the border and applied for asylum, you fled your country, Ahmed, applied for asylum, and most probably overstated your visa while it was pending. Pretty much the same thing.
This Ahmed is an attention seeking hypocrite. He wats to be petted by the Republicans like that Milo guy for “righteously” speaking up. How embarrassing.
Hello Jason,
You r doing great job, thanks. I have an issue. I have pending asylum case since July 2017, and still pending. My office i filed is Houston T.X. I moved last year to Wisconsin from Texas where i filed my case. it s been 1 year i still here in Wisconsin. For the purpose of avoiding to have any further delay due to transfering case to another state, i didn’t notify the USCIS for address change. My address is seen still Houston, TX where i lived before. When i am invited to interview, do you think would officer ask me the reason of not notifing address change to USCIS so far? As i know they can see all about me on my SSN. So they can easly know that i got DL in another state. Finaly do you think that this woud be a very serious problem for me during interview ?
Thanks
Levy
Whether it is a serious problem depends on the officer – in some cases, they will refuse to interview you and transfer the case to the office where you live. Also, there is the danger that they will accuse you of lying about your address, and if they think you are lying about that, they may conclude that you are lying about your case. In short, you should change the address if you have moved to WI. In any event, you are probably better off with that office than TX, since the Chicago office is faster and I think has a higher approval rate (I plan to post something about this later today, so check back). Take care, Jason
Thank you
Hi Jason
Thanks for your info here.
I applied for Asylum in 2017 but was refered to Immigration. Within that time I got married to a USC and had my immigration proceedings terminated before I a did AOS. Right now I have my GC.
My question is can I travel to my country since my GC is via marriage and the reason I did applied for Asylum earlier has been resolved? Will this be an issue when returning from my country?
You can, but the risk to your status does still exist. If they think the original asylum application was a fraud (due to the return trip), it could cause problems. This problem is worse for people who fear harm from the government, which can arrest you at the airport, rather than fearing harm from a terrorist group, which will take time to find you and harm you. If you have to go back to your country, you should be prepared to explain why you went and how you stayed safe. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
Before anything I would like to say thank you very much for helping asylum seekers in this lovely country (American United States). God bless you.
My wife and I applied for Asylum 2013, between 2016 and 2018 I have been interviewed 3 times and my wife 2 times, and everything was fine we didn’t felt any issue during our interviews.
Now we got a letter from the asylum office that they didn’t approve our asylum case.
They scheduled us to show up at the immigration court office at next month that we have to go and also we got another letter that they scheduled us for going to master hearing 2 months after showing up at the immigration court office.
Could you please tell me what do you think about these processing and why we need to show up and then master hearing before the immigration court?
Do you have any idea about the time frame between master hearing and immigration court?
I have another question too, I have been working at the company where they applied work sponsorship for me regarding my skill since 2 years ago and U.S. DOL (Dept of Labor Employment) opened a case for me and it is processing. My question is what happens to my work sponsorship while Asylum officer refers me to the court? Is there any chance that I can get approval from my work sponsorship before my immigration court? Or what things will happen in my cases and which one affect on another one?
I hope the immigration and government like to help to asylum seekers soon; likewise we love them and American people as well. Because we believe here (U.S.) is our home country.
Best Regards,
You have to attend the hearing; otherwise the judge will order you deported. You can find out your judge’s name and double check the date of the hearing by calling 800-898-7180 – it is a computer. Enter your Alien number and you will get the info. As for next steps, I wrote about that on March 3, 2018. As for the labor certification, it very likely will not work, but talk to a lawyer to be sure. Also, I wrote about this topic on August 28, 2018. Finally, it is often easier to win asylum in court than at the asylum office, and so you should certainly remain hopefully for this case. Good luck, Jason
Hi Jason,
I just read that a bill called the Dream and Promise Act of 2019 was just passed in the House and now moves to the Senate. Please can you clarify if this bill affects asylum seekers with TPS who have been in the US for 2 decades? I am asking because I read that those who have TPS and who have resided in the US for 2 decades can immediately apply for permanent residency/GC. Does this mean that if an asylum seeker has been here for 2 decades and hasn’t had an interview or is awaiting a decision on an interview, such a person will be able to skip that process and just apply for permanent residency/GC?
Thanks
The bill has no effect. It would have to pass the Senate and be signed into law by the President, and there is no indication that either would happen, unfortunately. If something changes, it will be in the news and I will post about it here too. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I am applying for my asylum-based GC. Part 8 (General Eligibility and Inadmissibility Grounds) of form i-485 requires me to answer whether I have EVER been arrested, cited, charged, or detained for any reason by any law enforcement official. My answer for this is YES. This is because I have been arrested by my government back home due to my involvement in opposition politics – the reason for my persecution ultimately forcing me to flee my country. I understand that this is one of the exceptions for which waiver for inadmissibility is granted. Is the waiver automatically granted or do I need to file for waiver for inadmissibility along with my i-485?
Thank you,
Ahmet
USCIS is being jerks about many things, but this should not be one of them (hopefully). You do need to mention the arrest, and explain in the cover letter that it was a political arrest and part of your asylum claim. That should be enough. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
Can I apply for EAD along with my i-485 application even though my EAD won’t expire in 180 days?
Thank you,
Kira
You can, but if the I-485 is based on granted asylum, you still have to pay the EAD fee separately and mail the EAD to the address for an a-5 EAD. The GC will probably take more than a year, and so you are probably better off renewing the EAD. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
Thanks for your article and all your efforts towards providing us with useful information. It is indeed sad to see how Mr. Ahmed views fellow asylum seekers at a time when support for each other is seriously needed. This ‘me-first’ attitude and lack of sympathy should not be traits of asylum seekers. My husband and I have been waiting for 3 years and we are not bitter that others who came after us have had interviews or even been granted approval, on the contrary we are happy when we hear of asylum seekers who successfully get safety from the horrors they are fleeing as this indicates the system is still working and one day it will be our turn!
I wish everyone all the best!
Let’s hope it will be your turn soon. I wrote a post about waiting on January 9, 2018, if you are interested. Take care, Jason
Jason ,
Thanks for all your help, I have a question based on I-485 application after one year grant on Asylum.
My question. 1) Using public benefit like Medicaid, on my wife and son form will I include it that they use public and state it that its Medicaid cos my wife used it to deliver our second child and my first child do use it since we got our asylum approved.
2) I didn’t use the Medicaid and anyother public benefit but want to ask if am to answer yes on my own form too as the head of the household but I didn’t have any benefit on my name.
Thanks Jason
1 – Using public benefits has no effect on the case of an asylee or his application for a GC (or citizenship). I wrote about that on September 24, 2018. However, if the form asked whether the person used public benefits, they should say yes, and indicate in the cover letter what benefits they used and for what period of time. 2 – If your children used them, you might want to mention this, just to avoid the potential problem of USCIS accusing you of hiding it (they love to do this). You can just say who in your family used benefits, what benefits, and for what period of time. Take care, Jason