MaryBeth Keller was the Chief Immigration Judge of the United States from September 2016 until July 2019. She was the first woman to hold that position. The Asylumist sat down with her to discuss her career, her tenure as CIJ, and her hope for the future of the Immigration Courts.
Asylumist: Tell us about your career. How did you get to be the Chief Immigration Judge of the United States?
Judge Keller: I was appointed to the position by Attorney General Loretta Lynch in 2016. By that time, I had been at EOIR (the Executive Office for Immigration Review) for 28 years, and had a lot of experience with and knowledge of the entire organization, especially the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (“OCIJ”) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).
After law school at the University of Virginia, I clerked for state court judges in Iowa. I wanted to return to DC, and in those days – the late 1980s – there were a lot of options. I submitted my resume to a federal government database and was selected to interview at the BIA for a staff attorney position (they liked the fact that I had taken an immigration law class with Professor David Martin at UVA). At the interview, I knew it would be an incredible job. The BIA is the highest level administrative body in immigration law, and the people I met seemed happy to be there. I thought I would stay maybe two years and then move on, but I ended up remaining with EOIR for 31 years.
I was at the BIA for about 15 years, nine of those as a manager. In my early days as a staff attorney, I helped revitalize the BIA union, which was basically defunct when I arrived. Some employees had wanted to simply decertify the union, but a colleague and I convinced the majority of attorneys and staff that it could be a useful organization, so they voted to keep it. I was the union president for several years. After I later became a manager, my colleagues joked that my penance for having led the BIA union was to have to deal with the union from the other side. I helped then-Chairman Paul Schmidt revamp and restructure the BIA in the mid-1990s.
From there, I served as EOIR’s General Counsel and was involved with many reforms, including the institution of the first fraud program and a program to address complaints about the conduct of Immigration Judges. This ultimately led to my appointment as the first Assistant Chief Immigration Judge (“ACIJ”) for Conduct and Professionalism (“C&P”). At the time, David Neal was the Chief Immigration Judge, and we built the C&P program from whole cloth. In addition to responsibility for judge conduct, performance, and disciplinary issues, I supervised courts from headquarters and was the management representative to the judges’ union. All of this experience led to me to the position of Chief Judge.
Asylumist: What does the CIJ do? How is that position different from the EOIR Director or General Counsel?
Judge Keller: I view the CIJ’s job as leading the trial level immigration courts to execute the mission of EOIR, including, most importantly, managing the dockets to best deliver due process. In practical terms, this involved hiring and training judges and staff, determining the supervisory structure of the courts, directing the management team of Deputies, ACIJs, and Court Administrators, overseeing the Headquarters team that supports the field, including an administrative office, a business development team, legal advisers, an organizational results unit, and an interpreters unit. The CIJ also collaborates with the other senior executives such as the Chairman of the BIA, the General Counsel, and the Director of Administration to coordinate agency activities on a broader scale. In years past, the CIJ acted as a high-level liaison with counterparts in DHS, the private bar, and other governmental and nongovernmental groups.
The regulations–specifically 8 C.F.R. 1003.9–describe the function of the CIJ. I kept a copy of that regulation on my wall. The regulations set forth the CIJ’s authority to issue operational instructions and policy, provide for training of the immigration judges and other staff, set priorities or time frames for the resolution of cases, and manage the docket of matters to be decided by the immigration judges.
Despite the regulation, under the current Administration, much of the CIJ’s, authority has been assumed by the Director’s Office or the newly created Office of Policy. Court operational instructions, court policy, the provision of training, setting priorities and time frames for case disposition, and many other matters are now being performed by the EOIR Director’s Office, with minimal input from the CIJ and OCIJ management. I do recognize the regulation setting forth the authority of the Director, as well as the fact that the CIJ’s authority is subject to the Director’s supervision. However, reliance on career employees and specifically the career senior executives (Senior Executive Service or SES) at the head of each EOIR component is significantly diminished now. I believe that is compromising the effectiveness of EOIR as a whole. Senior Executives have leadership skills and incredible institutional knowledge and experience that should bridge that gap between policy and operations. They should be a part of developing the direction of the agency and its structure to most effectively accomplish its functions, but are instead largely sidelined and relegated to much more perfunctory tasks. I worry that people with valuable skills will not be satisfied with decreased levels of responsibility, and will leave the agency. This will make it more difficult for EOIR to meet the challenges it is facing.
To answer the question as to how the CIJ position is different from the Director and General Counsel, the EOIR Director manages all the components of the Agency (BIA, OCIJ, Administration, and OGC) and reports to the Deputy Attorney General. The EOIR General Counsel provides legal and other advice to the EOIR component heads and the Director.
Asylumist: What were your goals and accomplishments as CIJ? Is there anything you wanted to do but could not get done?
Judge Keller: I was fortunate to serve as the CIJ at a time of many changes: Hiring an unprecedented number of IJs, finally beginning to implement electronic filing, and creating new ways to effectively complete cases. At the same time, we faced challenges, such as the ever-changing prioritization of certain types of cases, an increased focus on speed of adjudication, and the creation of the new Office of Policy within the agency, which was given far-reaching authority.
Amid these changes, one of my goals was to use my experience at the agency and my credibility to reassure judges and staff that, despite any changes, our mission of delivering fair hearings and fair decisions would remain unchanged. I always told new classes of judges that their primary responsibility was to conduct fair hearings and make fair decisions. Due process is what we do. And if we don’t get that right, we are not fulfilling the mission of the immigration court. I had the sense that my presence as CIJ gave people some level of security that we were holding on to that mission during all of the change.
Another goal was to hire more staff. I thought I would have more control over hiring and court management than I ultimately did. In terms of hiring, while we greatly increased the number of IJs, it is important to remember that IJs cannot function without support staff: Court administrators, legal assistants, clerks, interpreters, and others. The ratio is about 1-5, judges to support staff. Our hope was also to have one law clerk per IJ and we made some major progress in that regard. It might be wiser for EOIR to take a breather from hiring more judges and focus on hiring support staff, because that is imperative for the court to function. Overall, I was not able to prioritize staff hiring as I would have liked, nor was I confident that my office’s input had much impact on hiring decisions.
Aside from hiring many more judges, some of the positive changes we made while I was there included implementing shortened oral decisions–we do not need a 45-page decision in every case. Shorter decisions, where appropriate, are vital to increasing efficiency. We also encouraged more written decisions. It seems counterintuitive, but written decisions can actually be more efficient than oral decisions. If you have the written material available, as well as law clerks, and the administrative time to review the decision, written decisions save the time that would be spent delivering the oral decision and that time can be used for additional hearings. For this purpose, we greatly increased the accessibility of legal resources for both judges and staff through the development of a highly detailed and searchable user-friendly electronic database of caselaw, decisions, and other reference material.
Importantly, we were also working on ways to replace the standard scheduling based on Individual and Master Calendar Hearings. Instead, in a manner more like other courts, we would schedule cases according to the particular needs of the case, including creating, for example, a motions docket, a bond docket, a short-matters docket. Cases would be sent to certain dockets depending on what issues needed to be addressed, and then move through the process as appropriate from there. Different judges might work on one case, depending on what was needed. During the course of this process, many cases would resolve at the earliest possible point, and some would fall out–people leave the country, they obtain other relief, etc. But in the meantime, such cases would not have taken up a normally-allotted four hour Individual Calendar hearing block in the IJ’s schedule. We were looking to do at least three things: Secure a certain trial date at the start of proceedings, allot time judiciously to each matter, and reduce the time between hearings. If the immigration courts could successfully transition to this model, it would improve the timeliness and rate of completion of final decisions.
While I was CIJ, we also looked to see how other courts dealt with issues such as technology. For example, we went to see the electronic systems at the Fairfax County, Virginia court. That system is more advanced than EOIR’s, and it would, for example, allow a judge to give advisals that are simultaneously translated into different languages for different listeners. This would eliminate the time it takes to do individual advisals, without sacrificing the face-to-face time with the judge. We also investigated video remote interpreting, which is having the interpreter in the courtroom via video, so everyone can see and hear each other as if they were in the same place. IT infrastructure to properly support such initiatives is very expensive, but is obviously currently available and used by other court systems. Changes like improving the interpretation system and implementing e-filing and a user friendly electronic processing system would make a profound difference in how the courts operate.
I believe that some of these ideas are still being considered, but the problem is that there does not seem to be much patience for changes that are not a quick fix. I had hoped to move things further than we were able to, but we did make progress as I discussed.
As another example of a positive accomplishment, EOIR is now very effectively using more contractors for administrative support. This was started by Juan Osuna when he was Director of EOIR, and it has been highly successful. Because our growth has been so rapid, contract employees allow us to get top-notch people quickly, and gives us the flexibility to easily replace someone whose performance is not up to speed. Contractors are not a substitute for permanent employees, but can bridge the gap between a vacancy and a new hire. Once contractors have some experience, they can apply for permanent positions and by then, we have good knowledge of their skills and can hire experienced workers.
Finally, a major accomplishment was that I was the first female Chief Immigration Judge. Even though my experience was extensive, I still had to fight to get the job, including nine hours of interviews. At the time, I think I underestimated how much the workplace was still unaccustomed to women in particular positions. The emails I received after I left the job were astounding. Men and women alike wrote to tell me how much it meant to them to have a female CIJ.
Asylumist: How did things at EOIR change between the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration?
Judge Keller: Things now are unlike any time in the past. As I think we have been seeing throughout government during this Administration, the difference seems to be that there is now a fundamental distrust of people and organizations in the federal government. Over three decades, I have worked through a variety of administrations at all points on the political spectrum. Long-time federal employees are very accustomed to altering course when new administrations come in, whether or not the political parties change. Many employees and executives like me welcomed change as an opportunity to move their organizations forward and make the delivery of their services better. But if those in political power do not trust their subordinates and the functions of the agencies they run, it’s a very different and difficult scenario.
Some of the “small p” political pressure was happening by the end of the Obama Administration. For example, we saw this with children’s cases and the instruction we received from Justice Department leaders in political positions to prioritize those cases on our dockets. Still, in that instance, once the political goal was set, the best way to accomplish the goal, and even its ongoing feasibility, was largely left to senior staff in the agency with operational expertise to implement or to ultimately advise superiors that a different course of action might be needed. Now, very often both the political and the operational decisions down to the smallest details are dictated from above. For example, even my emails and communications to staff were edited from above. Aside from the very questionable advisability of having operational determinations made by persons with no operational expertise, this approach subjects the court process to claims that it is not neutrally deciding cases but instead deciding cases in the manner that political leaders would like.
Until recently, I had never really thought very hard about an Article I court for immigration cases. I thought that the line between politics and neutral adjudication was being walked. There was no major concern from my perspective about EOIR managers navigating that line. Now, the level of impact of political decisions is so extraordinary that I wonder whether we do need to remove the immigration courts from the Department of Justice. I’ve just started to seriously consider the validity of this idea and I need to do more research and thinking about it. The American Bar Association’s recommendations are very persuasive and of significant interest to me. Before, I would not have thought it necessary.
Of course, moving the Immigration Courts to Article I status would not solve all our problems, but it could free us from some of the questions that have been raised over the years about politicized hiring, how cases are being politically prioritized, and whether that is appropriate for a court.
Another large change came in our ability to talk to those we serve. To best function, you have to talk to stakeholders on both sides: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the private bar/respondents. This used to be standard procedure in past administrations, and it was done at both the upper and ground levels. Recently, such conversations were much more limited, and took place primarily at higher levels, often above my position and that of my Deputies. This change was touted as a way to streamline the Agency’s messaging system, but cutting off other forms of communication is detrimental, and I think EOIR has been hampered by our inability to talk at different levels to stakeholders.
We previously had a great relationship with the American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”). For example, when I was working on conduct and professionalism for Immigration Judges, AILA was a great help. At the time, AILA’s message was the same as our message (poor conduct of adjudicators and representatives should be addressed), and we successfully partnered for a long time. Similarly, the CIJ previously had regular interactions with DHS’s Principal Legal Advisor and others in the DHS management chain, but that is no longer the case. Another change to the management structure that I believe was ill-advised was abolishing the “portfolio” ACIJs who bore targeted responsibility for several very important subjects to immigration court management: Judge conduct and professionalism, training, and vulnerable populations. In my experience, having officials whose specialized function was to oversee programs in these areas increased the integrity, accessibility, credibility, and efficiency of the court.
Asylumist: While you were CIJ, EOIR implemented quotas. IJs are now supposed to complete 700 cases per year. Can you comment on this?
Judge Keller: Many different court systems have performance goals and I am generally in favor of those. But the question is, How do you establish and implement them? Are you consulting the managers and IJs about it? How do you come up with the goals? Should they be uniform across the courts? The current requirements were not developed by me or my management team. Numeric expectations alone are not going to fix things. Timeliness is more important in my view than specific numbers. Moreover, the way that the emphasis is being placed on these numbers now sends the wrong message to both the parties and our judges and court staff. Also, court staff and stakeholders would more likely buy into such a change if they understood how the goal was developed, and why. My experience is that IJs are generally over-achievers and they want to do well and will meet or exceed any goals you set. In my view, completing 700 cases may be an appropriate expectation for some judges and dockets, and might be too high or even too low for others. Courts, dockets, and cases are vastly different from the southern border to the Pacific Northwest to the bigger cities, so I’m not sure about a one-size-fits-all approach.
Asylumist: What about the Migrant Protection Protocols (“MPP”), also known as the Remain in Mexico policy. Can you comment on the effectiveness or efficacy of this program?
Judge Keller: The MPP began right before I left EOIR. In the MPP, as with all dockets, the role of the immigration court is simply to hear and resolve the cases that DHS files, but there were and still are, many legal and procedural concerns about the program. For example, what is the status of a person when they come across the border for their hearing, are they detained or not? Also, there were significant practical considerations. If you bring people across the border and plan to use trailers or tents for hearings, you need lines for IT equipment, air conditioning, water, bathrooms, etc. All that needs to be taken care of well in advance and is a huge undertaking. My impression of the MPP was that it was a political policy decision, which, even if an appropriate DHS exercise, is evidence of how asking the court to prioritize political desires impacts the overall efficiency of the court. The resources it required us to commit in terms of planning, and the resources it took away from the remaining existing caseload will likely contribute to further delay in other cases.
Asylumist: According to press reports, you and two other senior EOIR officials–all three of you women–were forced out in June 2019. What happened? Why did you leave?
Judge Keller: Unless there is something I don’t know about my two colleagues, none of us was forced out. I was not. We could have stayed in our same roles if we had chosen to do so. At the same time, I would not necessarily say that our departures were completely coincidental. I do know that the nature of our jobs had changed considerably.
For me, the previous level of responsibility was no longer there, and I did not have the latitude to lead the OCIJ workforce. My experience and management skills were not being used and I was mostly implementing directives. Any time three experienced, high-level executives depart an agency, there should be cause for concern. The fact that we were all women certainly raises a question, but EOIR has always been pretty progressive in that regard. Nevertheless, appropriate equal respect for women in the workplace is something that unfortunately still needs attention everywhere.
Leaving EOIR was a hard decision for me to make, and I think it was a big loss for EOIR that all three of us chose to exit.
The politicization of the court was also a concern for me. Historically, the Director of EOIR was always a career SES appointee, not a political SES. I viewed that as critically important, symbolically and practically, for a court system, especially one like the immigration court within the Executive Branch. Director James McHenry is in a career Senior Executive position. However, his path to the position was through the new Administration, which had detailed him from his position as a relatively new Administrative Law Judge to Main DOJ as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for a while before he became the Director. It appears that the large majority of his career otherwise was at DHS in non-managerial positions.
Successfully overseeing or managing an organization the size of EOIR with all of its challenges today would be difficult even for a seasoned executive with a lot of management experience.
The question at this time for EOIR is, How does your mission of fair adjudication of immigration cases fit within the broader immigration goals of the government? It takes deft and nuanced management to ensure the integrity of a court of independent decision-makers while maintaining responsiveness to political leaders. A good manager listens to people with expertise and is skilled at motivating others, getting the most from each employee, developing well-thought-out operational plans to reach policy goals, and even changing course if necessary. Under Director McHenry, the advice of the agency’s career executives was often not even solicited, and did not appear to be valued. His approach caused many to question the soundness of his operational decisions, and his commitment to the mission of the court, as opposed to accommodating the prosecutorial goals of DHS. I didn’t think there was as much focus on improving how we heard cases, as there was on meeting numeric goals and adjusting to the priorities of the DHS.
Asylumist: The BIA recently added six new members. All are sitting IJs and all had lower than average asylum approval rates. Do you know how these IJs were selected? What was the process?
Judge Keller: This was stunning. I can’t imagine that the pool of applicants was such that only IJs would be hired, including two from the same city. I think IJs are generally eminently qualified to be Board Members, but to bring in all six from the immigration court? I’d like to think that the pool of applicants was more diverse than that. At both the courts and the BIA, we used to get applicants for judge positions from academia, the private sector, BIA, and other governmental entities. More recently, we also had experienced judges and adjudicators from various other administrative systems, the military, and state and local courts applying to be IJs. I find these recent BIA hires to be very unusual.
I do not know the process for selection, but suspect that Board Chairman David Neal* had minimal input into these hires. I find this scenario very odd.
* Note: Since this interview took place, the Chairman of the BIA, David Neal, left his position and retired from the federal government. Before serving as Chairman of the BIA, David Neal held many other leadership positions at EOIR over many years, including the Vice-Chairman of the BIA and Chief Immigration Judge.
Asylumist: EOIR has made some moves to decertify the IJ union. Do you know why? What do you think about this?
Judge Keller: This happened after I left, but of course, it is easier to run an organization without people questioning you. Good managers recognize that you want opposing viewpoints. Maybe I am biased because I was a union officer, but I was also a manager longer than I was a union leader, and I’ve seen both sides. When I first learned that attorneys and judges were unionized, I was surprised, but I have seen the value of that. As a manager, the union is a great source of information. There are inherent conflicts between management and any union, but the union often has goals similar to those of management. The relationship between a union and management must be carefully developed, managed, and maintained. In the end, I felt it was worth the extra effort.
Now, I think management is more comfortable without public questions. I think decertifying is a mistake, particularly now when there are so many other changes that demand focus.
Asylumist: When he was Attorney General, Jeff Sessions gave a speech to EOIR where he claimed that most asylum cases were fake. This is also a line we frequently hear from the Trump Administration. What was your opinion of that speech?
Judge Keller: I think you may be referring to a press conference the Attorney General held at EOIR in October 2017. In a speech that day, the Attorney General said that the asylum system was “subject to rampant abuse and fraud.” That was disheartening. Fraud is not a factor in the large majority of cases. We know about fraud and we have been dealing with it probably since the inception of the immigration court. But it is not true that overwhelming numbers of asylum seekers are coming to immigration court trying to fraudulently obtain benefits. Whether the majority of their claims ultimately lack merit is a different question. But it is the very fact that we have a robust system to examine and decide asylum claims that makes our country a role model to others. I do not think statements like that made by the Attorney General are helpful to the court’s credibility. If IJs had that speech in mind in court, they would be labeled as biased, and bias is not a good thing for a judge or a court.
For the current Administration, I think there is an underlying skepticism about the extent to which the system is being manipulated. The process is indeed imperfect. But if you think that there are inappropriate “loopholes,” then we need to fix the law or the process. That is why comprehensive, or at least extensive, immigration reform has been discussed for so long. The Attorney General articulated some potential improvements he wanted to make, but also unfortunately focused in that speech on fraud and abuse, as if it was a problem greater than I believe it is.
When I would give my speech to new IJs, I would tell them that they would see the best and the worst of human nature in immigration court. As an IJ, you see persecutors and those who were persecuted; courageous individuals and liars. It is a huge responsibility. Therefore, you can’t go into court as an IJ and be thinking either that everyone is telling the truth, or that everyone is manipulating the process. You have to have an open, yet critical mind. It seems to me that Attorney General Sessions did not have a full appreciation for our particular role. This again brings us back to the idea of an Article I court, or some other solution to solidify the independence of immigration court adjudicators.
Asylumist: What do you think should be done about asylum-decision disparities? Does something need to be done?
Judge Keller: Yes. I think that asylum decision disparities should be evaluated by immigration court managers as they may be a sign of an underlying problem that may need to be addressed. However, I do not believe that they can or should be entirely eliminated.
If a judge is significantly out of line with his or her colleagues in the local court, it might be a red flag. Sometimes, simple things impact grant rates. For example, did the IJ miss some training in a particular area and is that affecting the grant rate? Is the judge assigned or does a court have a docket that by its nature (detained, criminal) will result in a higher or lower grant rate? Court managers should be alert to and manage those issues.
We’ve been looking at this issue for a long time. I remember talking about it with many EOIR leaders and judges over the last 10 years. But each case is different from the next and you don’t want decisions on asylum made according to mathematical formulas as if by computers. Decisions on such important human matters should be made by people who know the legal requirements, and can exercise sound judgment.
One way we thought about addressing seemingly significant disparities was temporarily assigning IJs with high or low grant rates to courts where the grant rates are different. Sometimes, the best way to evaluate your own opinions is to think through them with people who have different views. The hope was that judges would have the time and opportunity to reflect on their approach to asylum.
Once, former Director Osuna and I went to Chicago to visit the judges of the Seventh Circuit, which was at the time highly critical of our judges. We met with several of the Circuit Judges and talked about many things, including disparities in immigration court. We explained our approach to disparities, namely, addressing training needs, addressing any inappropriate conduct via discipline, and improving resources. One of the Circuit Judges mentioned that he was appreciative of our approach, and suspected that if anyone looked at it, there are probably similar disparities at the circuit court level too. As long as human beings are deciding immigration cases, there will always be some disparities. However, significant disparities should be evaluated and action taken only if the disparity is the result of something inappropriate, that is, something other than the proper exercise of independent legal judgment.
Asylumist: What is your hope for the future of EOIR?
Judge Keller: I hope EOIR can hold onto its core focus of hearing and deciding cases fairly and impartially. I also hope that the parties in the process know that we are listening to them. Parties in any court should feel that they’ve received a fair shake and a fair decision. They should understand the reasons why their cases were decided a certain way, and should not have to wait for years to get resolution. That is our reason for being – to deliver that service.
[…] a recent interview with Dzubow, former U.S. Chief Immigration Judge MaryBeth Keller said the recent BIA hirings were […]
Hi Jason I have a quick question. I’am a pending asylum since 2016. I receive 2 notices at the same time. The first scheduling me an interview on December and the second is the cancellation of the interview. in that case what must I do? Do you think it gonna more time again to reschedule me for interview?
Usually, when that happens, it means the interview is canceled and they send you a new interview date soon. However, if you are not sure, you should contact the asylum office and ask (by email is best), since you do not want to miss an interview. You can find their contact info if you follow the link at right called Asylum Office Locator. Take care, Jason
Dear Jason,
I am an Asylee but left the US to see my family. During my stay overseas, my Travel Document expired and I stuck outside the United States.
Is there any way that I can re-enter the United States or get a new travel document.
Your response will be highly appreciated.
Thank you.
I do not know. A first step would be to contact the US embassy and see whether there is anything they can do. It may help to have your expired travel document and evidence of your asylum claim. If they cannot help, you might want to hire a lawyer in the US to research whether anything can be done. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason and the forum readers,
I am an approved Derivate Asylee in the USA. I recently applied for EAD after my approval came through the mail. Do you know how long does it take to receive the EAD card? This is my first EAD application based on Derivate Asylee status. Other who have similar experience may comment as well. Very much appreciated.
I think it is variable. We have seen such cards take a month or sometimes several months. Technically, you are allowed to work with just the asylum status (even without the EAD), but many employers do not understand this and so having the EAD makes life easier. Take care, Jason
Current processing time based on a Approved asylum petition is six months which is Nebraska Service location. For the employment purposes we mainly fill out I-9 form which requires (EAD only). If not, we can use Social Security number plus driving license should be good enough.
Hello all and mr jason, once granted asylum a person has to renew work permit constantly until they have a green card in order to get a driver’s license?? I read people saying they only accept EAD AND SS, NOT asylum grant and as you may know the ead expire every two years. so that is a bother having a license that expires constantly
Different DMVs may have different policies about this. However, it is best to renew the EAD and have a valid EAD, as that makes your life easier. Anyway, the first EAD after asylum is granted is free, and you are probably eligible to apply for a green card after one year with asylum, so you can do that. The GC is valid for 10 years, and you can also apply for citizenship and leave all this immigration nonsense behind. Take care, Jason
Thanks, you are an angel.
Hi Jason,
I have a question for you regarding traveling with RTD and inadmissibility bar. Here is my situation. I crossed the US border without inspection three times 16 years ago – the first two times I was caught and deported and the third time I sneaked through and have lived here for 16 years. I had an arrest because I was driving without license 10 years ago. Two years ago I married an asylee who filed I-730 for me. My derivative asylum has just been approved and I am eligible to apply for RTD to travel outside the US. I am wondering, do you think there is a high risk I won’t be let in when I fly back to the US because of my inadmissibility and previous arrest? I know RTD is not a guarantee that DHS will let me back in, which is why I wanted to hear your thoughts.
My concern would be that you were somehow improperly issued asylum derivative status when you were not eligible for it. Given the past deportations, I think you would probably not be eligible for asylum, but that may be a different standard than required for asylum derivative status. In fact, I suspect that there is no guidance about this issue, which – if true – would leave you in an uncertain position. I think if you have the RTD, you will be able to return to the US, but if asylum was somehow given to you by mistake, that issue could come up upon re-entry (or when you apply for a GC or US citizenship), and could result in them trying to take away your status or maybe detain you. It may be worthwhile to have a lawyer research this issue for you, just to be safe. There may not be an answer, but it is worth trying to find out. Take care, Jason
I’m sorry I think I made it sound confusing. I got married to my spouse BEFORE she was granted asylum, which is how I became eligible for the status. The USCIS officer who conducted the interview was aware of the deportations when I crossed the border 16 years ago. I thought past deportations don’t disqualify me from getting asylum status. They would only disqualify me from green card if I was married to my spouse after her case was approved. Isn’t that not true?
A past deportation could disqualify you from asylum if you re-enter unlawfully. I do not know whether that applies to dependents, however, and it may be no problem. I am just not sure, and so it might not be a bad idea to look into this question, as you do not want to have a problem if you leave the US. My guess is that you would be fine, but I am not sure. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
For this years Dv lottery an unexpired passport number is required. My question is as an Asylum seeker can I use my passport number to apply for the Dv lottery?
Dear Jason or anyone who may know, can a person once granted asylee status go ahead and obtain an unrestricted social security and driver’s license? there seems to be very little information on this type of process .
Yes, you can go to the social security administration, bring the proof the you were granted asylum, and apply for an unrestricted social security number, as for the driver license just go to the dmv with the same proof, there’s no issue obtaining those two documents of you were granted asylum
For a driver’s license, I think not, but for the SS card, you should be able to get an unrestricted card. The SS office should be able to assist with that. Take care, Jason
For Drivers License, you will need at least the EAD and your Social Security number.
Hello Jason God Bless you for helping us, i have a question , i had my master hearing on September 24th and i was given my individual hearing on December 2020, but the judge has been moved from LA immigration court and i am waiting for new judge my question is will i get new master hearing? or the new judge will stay with the same that i was given?
thank you so much.
Sometimes, when a judge leaves, a new judge comes in and takes over the cases and nothing much changes. Other times, the court changes the dates, which usually causes more delay. These days, it seems that more often, the dates remain and you just get a new judge, but it could certainly happen the other way as well. You can call the court to ask if there is any news – you can find their phone number of you follow the link at right called Immigration Court. Take care, Jason
Thank you so much!
Hi Jason, i found out yesterday that the judge has ordered me removed. I don’t have the decision yet but i want to file an appeal. I do have attorneys. I wanted to ask: what are the chances that case that was referred because of one year deadline in the office and in court, to get approval at the BIA? My attorneys once said that it is very hard to get approved there but it’s worth a try. What is your experience with BIA?
Thanks!
It depends on too many factors to know. If the main issue is the judge’s legal analysis, it is usually more likely that you can win on appeal. But if the main problem is that the judge thinks you are lying (and the case or the one-year bar), it is harder to win. Once you have the decision, you can discuss with your lawyer and get an idea of the likelihood of success, but even with the decision, it is difficult to predict. Take care, Jason
Dear Jason,
Thank you for all you do on this page.
I moved to Texas from Newark, NJ in 2018 and started work and school in Texas in fall 2018, sometime this year I changed my address and moved my application from Newark Center to Houston Center.
I want to ask, is it possible for me to move my application back to Newark as it’s up to 2.5 years now that I filled and no interview yet on my application?
Also, would I still be in the exact position I was, should I move my application back to Newark?
It’s really tiring and not giving strength especially when one is missing his family. A fast and encouraging reply will be appreciated.
Regards,
Emmanuel
If you move back to NJ (or somewhere within the jurisdiction of the NJ office), you would move the case back to NJ. Supposedly, if you move, you keep your same filing date, and so it does not really matter whether the case is in NJ or TX, except that some offices are faster than others. I wrote something about the backlog in the different offices on June 12, 2019, and I think NJ is currently moving better than TX. In any event, your case has to be at the office where you live. If you want, you can try to expedite the case. I wrote about that on March 30, 2017. Take care, Jason
Thank you, Jason.
Your information is quite understood.
Please, can I tell the Newark Centre that I am schooling in Texas, this is because I am being charged as an out of state student? I am just thinking if the Newark center would believe me as I can show them the proof of payment as an out of state student
Regards,
Emmanuel
I am not sure I understand – do you want to keep the case in NJ while you are studying in TX? If so, we have done that before by showing that the school address is temporary and that the person has his permanent address in the home state. You would want some evidence of this – lease or mortgage for the permanent address, evidence that you return there during school breaks, evidence that you have bills and bank statements and other mail going to the permanent address, etc. Maybe a driver’s license at the permanent address. If you have these things, you should be fine. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason,
I have a question which is totally out of topic. Have you ever had a client with a pending asylum application invite a friend for visit? Was the invitee granted a visa? Does the legal status weigh in an invitation or all the burden would be on the person invited to prove that he/she has strong ties in their home countries?
I have had people try that, but I do not remember the result, as I usually do not get involved in such cases. The person needs to apply for a visa like anyone else, and the “invite” does little to help. It just shows the reason why the person wants to come to the US. The person still must qualify for a visa. My sense is that being invited by a person with a pending asylum case does not count as a negative factor (unless you are the asylum seeker’s spouse or child, or maybe sibling). If the person qualifies for a visa, they should hopefully be able to get one. Take care, Jason
Thank you so much Jason. I always think the world of you
Jason you have such an amazing soul! thank you so much for this explanation in such a nice manner !
Hi Jason
I have a question please on RTD.
you metioned above in a comment RTD is for some countries do you know if this available for Srilanka.
In case there is an a family emergency can the main applicant travel to the Country is passport and come back.
how many days on RTD can you be out of the country ?
And for myself i would like to know if i need to travel to Saudia Arabia is an RTD acceptable ?
I would like to go on a pilgrimage for about 2 weeks is it possible to travel and come back, are we going to be stopped for any reason at the immigration or be questioned.
I have been wanting to go for religious reasons for a long time however i have not been able to do so due the fear of not being able to return.
My husband and I both do not have valid passports.
In this current political climate and the current backlash against immigrants, I would recommend you contact a lawyer. It would probably be best you wait until you are eligible for citizenship before you go back to your home country.
The RTD is valid for a year, and if you come back before it expires, you should be fine. Anyone with asylum can get an RTD – it does not matter what your country is. Whether Saudi Arabia accepts the RTD in lieu of a passport, I do not know. Maybe check their embassy webpage or call the embassy to ask. If not, I guess you can travel on your passport (if you can get one), but that involves the risks I mentioned above. Also, be aware that if you want to apply for a GC, you need one year inside the US. So if you leave for 2 weeks, you have to wait 1 year and 2 weeks after asylum was granted before you can file for the GC. Take care, Jason
Thank you Jason !!! I appreciate you helping me with this query.
You are such an amazing person for people… a real people’s person. you should become the president and treat everyone fair and equal.
Thank you ! …. for always being there to help.
You get nothing in return to help us and that defines the humanity in you !
Thank you – We’ll see about president. Maybe in 2024. Take care, Jason
Hi Kayra, Saudi Arabia does accept RTD and funny thing i sthey will treat you like U.S Citizen. i am being there last April and it was smooth both at Saudi Arabia and at New York while I return after 2 weeks. Hope that helps.
Thank you for helping and for writing your comment… very helpful …
Does the same rule apply for pending asylum applicants ? So if i have a pending asylum application can i get an RTD
And get it to go to another country for example saudia arabia and be back in 2 weeks ?
It is a different rule. If you have an asylum case pending in the Asylum Office, you need Advance Parole. I wrote about that on September 11, 2017. If you have a case pending in court, you generally cannot travel and return. Take care, Jason
Case pending in courts and case pending with the asylum office is it the same thing Jason?
Please clarify so until our case is approved or called for an interview we cannot travel on an advance parole for 2 weeks atleast and return back to the country?
They are not the same. People in court generally cannot travel (if your case is in court, it means the government is trying to deport you, and so if you leave, you have probably deported yourself). But if your case is at the asylum office, you can apply for AP to travel. I wrote about that on September 11, 2017. Take care, Jason
I have RTD and planning to go saudi Arabia from new York would you please explain how it will work? As you mentioned you was already there for two weeks.
Hi Jason,
Can you clarify how the RTD works please. Why one should or shouldn’t use their country passport; and is one wants to use it, on what basis can they use it? Speak about the short and long term pros and cons please.
Or if you had written an article just about RTD, please tell me which month and year it was written so I can go look it up.
Thanks kindly!
I think I have not written about this, but I should. The RTD is for people who have asylum. Such people should not use their passport because use of the passport can be seen as placing oneself under the protection of the home government. This is more of a problem for people who fear persecution from the home government, as opposed to people who fear persecution from a non-state actor where the government is unable to protect that person. If you use your passport, it could cause the US government to question the validity of your asylum claim. I have not seen that happen, but it could, and so it is better to be safe and use the RTD. The main negatives of the RTD are that not all countries accept it as a travel document (in which case, people usually visit the country with their passport and use the RTD to re-enter the US, though this still could create issues as I mentioned) and that the RTD is valid for only one year, which sometimes makes travel difficult. Anyway, maybe I will write an article about it one of these days. Take care, Jason
I was told by Canadian Embassy recently, because I still have a valid Canadian Visa in my passport from my country of origin, I could use it to enter Canada with the RTD. But I should use the RTD when returning to the US. I assume upon return the immigration officer is gonna ask for details.
The officer could ask. It sounds like you can explain why you are entering with the passport, especially given what the embassy told you. If they happened to tell you that in an email, maybe take a copy of the email with you, so you can show it if asked. If you want to be extra careful, you could try to get the Canadian embassy to put a new visa in your RTD, but my guess is that you will be fine if you follow their advice, and be prepared to explain to the US immigration officer if asked. Take care, Jason
Mr. Jason can there be multiple certificate of translations on evidence on an asylum app.
Dear Mr. Jason besides that also, can I submit color photos in my two copies for evidence or do they have to be black and white. thank you again
Color or black and white should both be fine, as long as the photos are clear. Take care, Jason
Do you mean for a single document? I guess there could be, but that would seem confusing and unnecessary. Take care, Jason
Thank you replying , what I meant to say is that I have one translation per documents , meaning one evidence one certificate , but the person I paid for most of my translation left the state , now I had to find a different person for some other translations I have on the evidence packet exhibit. so the question was if there is any conflict with having multiple translator certificates. like diffrent people. thank you so much
We often file cases where different translators translated different documents. It should be no problem. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason Sir,
I have submitted I-485 along with I-693 medical few months ago, now USCIS returned my I-693 form and asked me submit again no particular reason given. I’ve spoken a tier 2 officer at USCIS but he just told me see the instructions. I’ve checked the form is okay from my filled part n signed as well. The doctor filled her whole part of form with the BLUE ink pen. My questions is if any of the USCIS form filled with blue ink can cause a rejection?
Thanks and lots of prayers for you.
I do not think blue ink would cause it to be rejected – I thought blue or black was acceptable. One possibility was that it was too old – if the I-693 was more than 60 days old at the time you sent it in, it might have expired and so you need a new one. They should have made that clear, however (the rules keep changing, but I think the current rule is that if the I-693 is submitting within 60 days of the date the doctor signs it, is will remain valid for the duration of the green card application; otherwise, it can expire). Other than that, I do not know why they would reject it. Probably the best bet is to bring it to the doctor with the USCIS letter and see if they can help. Take care, Jason
“Any time three experienced, high-level executives depart an agency, there should be cause for concern.”
Judge Keller
And unfortunately, it is much worse than that, as many people have been leaving. In the last few months, the Chief Immigration Judge left, and so did the Chief of the BIA. Also, the long-time head of the USCIS Asylum Division was forced out. The only silver lining here is that by removing competent people, they have made it harder to implement their own anti-immigrant agenda, since these various organizations cannot function efficiently without experienced leaders. Take care, Jason
Jason, this sounds very scary.
Hi Jason,
I have a question regarding filing for renewal of an EAD , If I file for the renewal of an EAD and then move to another address /location and update the same to USCIS will it any way affect the timelines and delivery of my EAD.
Thanks
Ali
It should not affect the time line, but make sure to update your address for the I-589 and for the I-765. Take care, Jason
Here is my timeline
I applied for asylum San Francisco office: August 31st, 2015
Fingerprint: September 11th, 2015
Interview schedule: August 27th, 2019 ( I rescheduled)
Interviewed: September 12th, 2019
Decision: September 26th, 2019 (Recommended Approval)
Final Decision: October 17th, 2019 (Asylum Granted)
Don’t lose hope, may God be with you all
Thank you Jason for being there for us
Congratulations, I just had my own interview this week after waiting for almost two years. I hope and pray for an approval.
Congratulations !
Here is my timeline
I applied for asylum San Francisco office: August 31st, 2015
Fingerprint: September 11th, 2015
Interview schedule: August 27th, 2019 ( I rescheduled)
Interviewed: September 12th, 2019
Decision: September 26th, 2019 (Recommended Approval)
Final Decision: October 17th, 2019 (Asylum Granted)
Don’t lose hope, may God be with you all
Thank you Jason for being there for us
Jason, i have genaral question for you.green card holder from asylum ok to travel a 3rd country using his country passport?
It is better to use the Refugee Travel Document (form I-131, available at http://www.uscis.gov). I have had many clients travel with their passports, and we have not seen problems, but it is better to be safe than sorry, and try to use the RTD. This would be especially true if you fear your home government (as opposed to a terrorist group or some other non-government actor). If you do travel with the passport, at least you should be prepared to explain why you did that if you are asked about it. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I applied in 2014 and I was interviewed more than a year ago still waiting for my decision at Boston office. Do you think my decision would come anytime soon? I know AO are not working on new cases in Boston but do you think If I move to New York and move my case there it would be ideal? Would you suggest your client to do that? I don’t want to wait any longer.
If you were already interviewed, the office that did the interview should make the decision, even if you move (though if you need a second interview, that would take place at the new office). You can contact them to inquire about the decision. You can find their contact info if you follow the link at right called Asylum Office Locator. If that does not work, you might consider a mandamus lawsuit – we wrote about that on October 2, 2018. Take care, Jason
Hello Again Jason!
I just wrote to you about my recommend approval and after how many days i should wait before inquiring, Thanks God i just got my final approval today, my question is, i sent the document to renew my ead on October 3rd, now that my asylum has been approved and they were send me an ead card, is there a way i can request for a refund? I can use that $410 to do something else
I doubt it – if USCIS did not cash the check, maybe you can block it with your bank. Otherwise, you can call them at 800-375-5283 and ask whether is it possible to get a refund. Perhaps it is a version of Murphy’s law – you paid $410 for nothing, but somehow, that caused the universe to issue your final approval. Congratulations on your asylum! Take care, Jason
Dear Jason, how long does it take to get a interview notice in the mail after status changed to interview scheduled. and what kind of mail prefrence can I use to mail my exhibit? thank you
I do not know how long it will take. Maybe a few weeks. When we mail documents in, we send them by priority certified mail, USPS. Make sure you keep a copy of anything you mail in. Take care, Jason
Hello Mr.Jason,
I was granted asylum last year. My entry to the U.S. was with my B2 visa which has an expiration date of 2023. I would like to know if it’s still valid. When applying for a visa for Canada, they require me to submit a copy of valid U.S. non-immigrant visa. Am I able to include that that as a valid visa or is it invalidated because of asylum?
I guess the visa was never canceled, so in that sense, it is still valid. However, your status here is asylee and you should have received a new I-94 stating that. You would have to enter the US based on your asylum status, not the B visa. Maybe the best thing is to give a copy of that visa and also of your asylum status, so they will know what your status is. If you are unsure, maybe talk to a lawyer in Canada who knows the immigration laws of that country. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason I have a specific question for you !
Do you think an asylee from the “banned countries” travelingl with only the RTD I-131 ( no GC yet ) could face any difficulties coming back to the US , knowing that the asylee is born in a third country and is eligible for citizenship of that 3rd country ,meaning Only if they apply for it they might take it , this was also explained truthfully in the asylum case ! however there are no intention for either going to original country or applying for any other citizenship ,
Thank you Jason ! Take care .
I have not seen that exact scenario, but I have never heard of an asylee from a banned country facing trouble returning to the US on the RTD, so I think you are fine. The fact that you could claim citizenship in a third country is not the same as being “firmly resettled” in that country. As long as you do not actually go to that country or claim citizenship there, there should be no effect on your asylum status or the RTD. Take care, Jason
Hello jason!
After how many days should i go to inquiry about my final approval? I received a recommandation approval, I’m not from the Middle East, I’m from Africa, D.R Congo, i don’t know why it’ll take them a long time to do the background check, and also will it be a safe move to inquiry with ombudsman office?
Hi Jason,
How long it takes nowdays for asylum case to get an approval ?
Unpredictable. A good number of cases get a decision in 2 weeks after the interview, but many cases take months or longer. Take care, Jason
It’s up to you – there is no time frame. I would probably wait 60 days before inquiring, and hopefully you will get a decision before then. Also, I would not bother with the Ombudsman until at least 6 months has passed since the interview. That office is not so helpful anyway, and I doubt they would take any action unless a significant time has passed. Neither the inquiries nor the Ombudsman really does much, but at least it reminds them about the case. If no decision comes for a long time, you can file a mandamus lawsuit – we wrote about that on October 2, 2018. Take care, Jason
Hey TIRED, can you share your time line with me please how did you arrive to get the approval recommendation , when did you apply I’m from the DRCongo…..thanks
Hi Jason,
For this years Dv lottery an unexpired passport number is required. My question is as an Asylum seeker can I use my passport number to apply for the Dv lottery?
You can, but whether you can even get the GC if you win, I do not know – it depends on the case. You might as well try (since it is free), but if you win, you will have to talk to a lawyer to see how/whether to proceed. Take care, Jason
Mr Jason can you please tell this people from USCIS at the November meeting to start working on backlog cases and process people , can you remind them that we are humans and not pieces of dirt ( aliens from different planets ) perhaps they could see that people need to go on with their lives and know if they can stay or not . Waiting five years for an interview seems like this was the wrong place to seek safety . Thank u
The backlog is the main issue of discussion at these meetings. The issue is that they do not have enough officers and staff to do all the cases; they have been struggling with this problem for years. Take care, Jason
After grant of asylum, when can I apply for green card and in approx what time I receive it? I applied in Sept 2015.
From the date you are granted asylum, you have to wait one year, and then you can apply for a green card. The wait for the GC is not very predictable, but most cases we are seeing take about 14 months. You can check the I-485 processing times at http://www.uscis.gov; I think it shows 12 to 36 months or something like that. Take care, Jason
[…] Asylumist, Oct. 15, 2019 […]
Dear Jason , what is the difference between USCIS and EOIR ? Thank you!
USCIS oversees the asylum office (and other immigration benefits) and EOIR oversees the immigration court and the Board of Immigration Appeals. Take care, Jason
Thanks for sharing
Thanks for sharing this interview. I think most of the times political orders are overcoming honorable judges’ ability and learning on decisions they want to make.
Many government workers are leaving government service for this very reason, and it is damaging our country. Take care, Jason