Earlier this month, USCIS announced the commencement of Operation PARRIS (Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening) in Minnesota with plans to later expand across the country. USCIS describes the operation as “a sweeping initiative reexamining thousands of refugee cases through new background checks and intensive verification of refugee claims.” The Agency will initially focus on “Minnesota’s 5,600 refugees who have not yet been given lawful permanent resident status (Green Cards).” USCIS adjudicators will conduct “thorough background checks, reinterviews, and merit reviews of refugee claims.”
As part of this new effort, ICE agents have arrested “dozens of refugees… mainly from Somalia and includ[ing] children.” The targeted individuals mostly do not seem to have any criminal issues, and many have been quickly transported out of state, away from family members, friends, and lawyers.
Today, we’ll discuss what USCIS’s so-called “war on fraud” means for refugees and other immigrants, and how to prepare in the event that your case is subject to re-verification.
The genesis for Operation PARRIS seems to be an internal USCIS memo from November 2025. According to AILA, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the memo orders USCIS to “review and potentially re-interview all refugee approvals from January 21, 2021, to February 20, 2025.” In other words, the Agency plans to re-examine all 200,000+ refugee cases that were approved during President Biden’s term. Note that this memo applies to refugees and not to people granted or applying for asylum. The memo also purportedly orders USCIS to “stop adjudicating any applications to adjust status filed by refugees, their derivatives, and follow-to-join refugees admitted during this timeframe.”
Apparently, the review will be quite broad. It will re-examine whether each refugee’s claim was credible and whether they demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or particular social group.
The Agency will also look at possible grounds of inadmissibility, including criminal and security-related issues, and certain communicable diseases. The focus will be on the persecutor and terrorism bars, which state that people who persecuted others or supported terrorism may not be admitted to the United States. The terrorism bar in particularly is overly broad and potentially blocks victims of terrorism as well as people who actually supported terrorists.
Where a refugee was found inadmissible and received a waiver (permission to enter the U.S. despite being inadmissible), USCIS will re-examine the waiver to determine whether it was properly approved.
If it determines that refugee status was improperly granted or a waiver was improperly approved, USCIS will move to terminate the refugee grant pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 207.9. Under that section, the Agency should “notify the alien in writing of its intent to terminate the alien’s refugee status.” “The alien will have 30 days… to present written or oral evidence to show why the alien’s refugee status should not be terminated.” If USCIS ultimately terminates the person’s refugee status, they will be referred to Immigration Court where they can present any defenses, such as asylum, Withholding of Removal, protection under the Torture Convention, adjustment of status, etc., and a judge will determine whether they can remain in the United States.
Aside from refugees who have not yet obtained their Green Cards, USCIS will “hold” all pending I-485 applications (Green Card applications) filed by refugees during President Biden’s term. How long the hold will last, we do not know. In addition, refugees who have already received their Green Cards will be subject to review. So far, at least, I have not heard about Operation PARRIS targeting asylum seekers or anyone else aside from refugees.
How is all this actually being implemented?
Based on news reports and information shared by lawyers in Minnesota, it seems that more than a hundred refugees have been detained by ICE and shipped to a detention facility in Texas. According to IRAP, a non-profit that is suing the Trump Administration over these detentions–
Once jailed in Texas, refugees are frequently put through intensive questioning without adequate opportunity to prepare or consult with a lawyer. Many have been forced to answer the same questions they were already asked when they initially proved to the U.S. government they were refugees or on their green card applications, this time without the opportunity to review the paperwork they may have submitted months or years ago. Those ICE has released were left on the streets of Texas, usually without money, identification, or any way to get home. Other refugees have been forced to stay in detention in Texas for a week or more, with no information about why they are being detained or when they will be released.
There also are reports that some refugees are being pressured to agree to “self deport.” Several refugees who had pending Green Card applications were interviewed about their eligibility, and in at least a few cases, the Green Cards were approved and the person was released. I have not yet heard about anyone being placed into removal proceedings or deported, but clearly those are possibilities.
We are also hearing about refugees who receive a letter from USCIS ordering them to report for an “interview/case review.” The example letter I saw gave the person less than two weeks notice prior to the appointment. At least in some of these cases, the people who appeared for an interview were detained and quickly transported to a detention facility in Texas.
What should refugees be doing to prepare?
First, if you do not have a copy of your immigration file, you should obtain that. There is a helpful website that explains the Freedom of Information Act process here. It is important to have your file so you can review what’s there, and be prepared in case you are re-interviewed.
Second, if you have had refugee status for more than a year and you have not yet applied for your Green Card, you should do so using form I-485. For refugees, there is no fee for this application. A refugee is (arguably) required to apply for their Green Card once they have been in the U.S. for a year, and failing to apply could cause you to be placed into removal proceedings. If you need help applying, there are non-profit organizations that may be able to assist.
Finally, you should have a plan in case you are detained, and know your rights if ICE comes to your home or stops you on the street. A trusted family member or friend should have access to your immigration documents, and if you have a lawyer, your friend should have the lawyer’s contact information.
The situation these days seems quite dire, but we still need to keep things in perspective. While refugees (and others) are under siege in Minnesota, most people with refugee status should be relatively secure and should be able to satisfy USCIS if their case is re-evaluated. Getting a copy of your file, applying for a Green Card if you are eligible, and having a plan are the best ways to minimize your risk in these frightening times.
Hi Jason,
A few months ago I asked you about the safety of naturalized citizens who obtained their citizenship through asylum, especially given discussions around denaturalization. At that time, you mentioned that naturalized citizens should generally be protected and not at risk. With the recent events and heightened enforcement activities, do you still feel that I am safe as a naturalized citizen?
You also recommended that I request a copy of my immigration file through FOIA. I actually obtained my immigration file from FOIA in 2019, which includes my asylum application, interview, immigration court hearing, and green card approval. That file doesn’t include my naturalization information, since I became a U.S. citizen in 2023.
I’m hesitant to request a new complete immigration file (including the naturalization documents) because I’m concerned that making that request could make me more visible and potentially vulnerable if there are efforts to pursue denaturalization. Would you advise that I request the updated file to include my naturalization process, or is having the immigration records up through obtaining my green card sufficient for my own peace of mind and legal preparedness?
Your insight and guidance would be greatly appreciated.
I have heard about one person who supposedly committed fraud as part of the asylum process and is now subject to a de-naturalization hearing in federal court. I do not know how the case was initiated or when the person got asylum. So while I do think naturalized citizens are basically safe, for people who may have had a criminal issue that they failed to disclose during the immigration process or who committed a fraud, I suppose their is some risk. I would expect the most common way that fraud is exposed is when the naturalized person files an application for someone else, and that application is inconsistent with the person’s prior immigration history. I had a case similar to this several years ago. The person filed to naturalize and listed several family members on the form (as required by the N-400). The problem was that he claimed those same family members were dead when he filed for asylum. He had an explanation – that he thought they were dead at the time (he was from a country that had a genocide and many families were split up). While his explanation was not totally implausible, his naturalization was denied and he was sent to immigration court where his case was denied. He later hired me and we were able to get him Torture Convention protection, which was (in my opinion at least) the best we could have done under the circumstances. The point being, through his own actions, he ended up exposing himself to a charge of fraud. And so people need to be careful about that. In terms of the FOIA, I do not think it would trigger a problem, but if you have a copy of your N-400, I am not sure that it would give you much additional information, and so there is not much reason to do it. If you don’t have a copy of the N-400 or fear there might be some problems with the naturalization case, I think it is safe to request a copy of that file. Take care, Jason
Have you seen any asylum based citizenship applications approved recently? What has been the timeline from filing date to interview to naturalization ceremony that you’ve seen “on the ground” Jason? Trying to get an idea how long it’s taking for when I’m eligible to file towards the end of the year. Thanks in advance.
I have some pending, but have not had a decision very recently. I am currently telling clients that it takes 1 year or longer, as my most recent cases seemed to take about a year. If you are from a banned country, the delay will be longer, as USCIS is holding all such cases until they can change their security screening process, and we do not know how long that will take. Take care, Jason
Dear Jason,
I hope you are well. I am writing to seek clarification and updated information regarding the current U.S. immigration and travel restrictions affecting nationals from Muslim-majority countries.
Since January 2025, there have been pauses and restrictions on refugee resettlement (USRAP), asylum processing, Affidavits of Relationship (P-3), I-730 follow-to-join cases, immigrant visas, student visas, work visas, and visitor visas. Many families, including mine, have been separated for years due to these policies.
Could you please advise:
Whether these pauses and travel bans are still in effect for Muslim-majority countries
If there is any official timeline or expectation for when these restrictions may be lifted
Whether upcoming international events, such as the 2026 FIFA World Cup hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico (with matches beginning in June), may lead to policy changes or special travel considerations
This information is very important for families who have been waiting for reunification, protection, education, and lawful travel opportunities.
Thank you for your time and any guidance you can provide. I truly appreciate your support and attention to this matter.
There is a complete travel ban for some countries, a partial travel ban for others, and a relatively new ban on immigration visas from about 75 countries which is allegedly related to the likelihood that people from these countries will become public charges. There is no timeline for when the bans may be lifted, but the ban on 75 countries will hopefully be relatively short, and will end once the government comes up with a plan to tighten rules related to public charge (and of course, this is all nonsense, as there are already plenty of rules in place to prevent people from becoming public charges, but it is the government’s way to harm more people). For the other bans, I believe there are some lawsuits to try to end those, but whether those lawsuits have a chance for success, I do not know. In terms of the World Cup and the Olympics, there are some exceptions for travel related to those events, though I think those are mostly for athletes and people who are part of the delegations. Also, the ban on 75 countries is for immigration and does not affect non-immigrant visas. Take care, Jason
Jason, I have a question, please. Thank you for everything what you do for the community. It is very important for us.
I have had my asylum interview in May 2025 and no decision have been granted as of yet. I know there is a hold now for all these type of cases. Last week, I received from USCIS a letter in the mail advising me to show up on another interview that is going to take place in April 2026. Same office. The letter came specifically from USCIS (not from ICE). I am not from one of the 19 ban countries. Taking that all the decisions are now pending, do you believe it is a good sign to get a second interview, or might it be just for the vetting purposes as the USCIS conducts more in deep background checks currently? I do not have and never had any criminal records. Can ICE arrest me? I never overstayed visa, filed many years ago and on time. Please share some thoughts with me as I am very concern, as you may guess, these days.
Thank you!
Jason will definitely reply to you but this is obvious it is for vetting purpose. This is not normal be careful and make sure you know and are prepared for what is ahead.
I have not heard about a second (or first) interview in a case like this resulting in an ICE detention, so I think you should be safe from that. Second interviews are pretty common and there are many reasons for them. You should prepare as you prepared for your first interview, and if you have notes about what you said at the first interview, you should review those. You want to do your best to testify consistent with what you said at the first interview. I wrote more about second interviews on June 22, 2022 and maybe that would be of interest. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason,
I applied for my EAD renewal on Dec 2024 and currently, I work with the receipt renewal for EAD. I heard that the administration completely stopped all applications including EAD renewals and mainly for people like Afghanistan which I am from. I will be still able to work almost like a year. Do you see anything positive that they restart processing applications? This is extremely stressful situation, and if we can’t work, we have zero chance to run our life, and I will loose my job just on the same day.
USCIS has paused EAD renewals for asylum seekers. We do not know how long the pause will last, but I have heard some initial talk about a possible lawsuit. Hopefully, it will end on its own, but if not, we may see a lawsuit to try to end it. I am somewhat hopeful that this pause will not last long, as the damage to asylum seekers is potentially very great and that may be a partial basis to try to get the rule overturned in court. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason, I have pending asylum case in NYC, I’m very worried about ICE and raids, do you or your firm provide services to help if someone detained by ICE(bond hearing, or habeas corpus) ? If yes, would it be possible to share estimated cost? Then I could schedule initial consultation, if pricing is very high, I just won’t be able to afford it and wouldn’t make sense to schedule consolation. thank you
Our firm does such cases. The fee varies depending on the situation, and what we are doing. If you email with some basic info, I can try to give you a sense of our fee (Jason@MurrayOsorio.com), but since I am not the main person doing habeas cases, I can’t post the possible fees here as it is too variable. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason, I’ve been seeing more stories in the news about targeted raids where people with pending asylum cases are being detained – like the recent situation in Minnesota with a dad and his 5-year-old. It doesn’t sound like this is happening to everyone with asylum pending, just certain cases.
Have you heard anything about how these targets are chosen? Some of these families don’t seem to have criminal records, entered legally and have been in the country more than 2 years – and there was even a case where someone with asylum pending for 12 years was detained and then released because a judge said there was no warrant. Curious if you have any insights or thoughts.
Question regarding the visa pause for 75 countries:
I saw that yesterday that:
Lawsuit Details: A coalition of immigration groups, lawyers, and U.S. citizens sued the State Department, aiming to overturn the suspension of visa approvals for nationals from 75 countries.
Is this good, can a judge halt the pause?
If the rule violates the Administrative Procedures Act, it could be blocked by a court. In general, the Executive Branch has a lot of power over immigration. However, if the rule is arbitrary and there is no basis for it, a court may block it. We will see how this goes. It seems like this type of case often succeeds at the lower federal courts but fails at the Supreme Court. Take care, Jason
Can we sue the Supreme Court to the world court ?
I suppose, but what good that will do, I do not know. Take care, Jason
It seems to be almost exclusively people who entered at the border or who were allowed in with humanitarian parole. Also, anyone with a criminal issue. There may also be people who entered with a visa and applied affirmatively, but I have not heard about that yet. The Trump Administration takes the position that anyone who entered at the border is subject to mandatory detention. There is a big legal fight about this in the federal courts, and for most cases, it seems like the Administration is losing, but it is expensive and time consuming for non-citizens to have to go to federal court, especially since before now, such people were simply released or at least given the chance to apply for release on bond with an Immigration Judge. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason and everyone here.
Early 2016 Filed for Asylum in NY,
Early 2024 filed Mandamus (approved and scheduled interview with USCIS),
Summer 2024 Interviewed and Referred to Court / Reason (“Country Conditions Improved”) ,
Master Calendar done Early 2025 and scheduled for: Individua Hearings for Early 2027,
Filed Motion To Advance and was approved for Jan. 2026 i had Interview and i was Denied (Removal) due to:
During the USCIS interview i said “I was kicked” vs Individual Interview “I was pushed” also “Lost Keys then Found later” vs “Keys were took from me then Found later” , I had and have very Solid Case and i had many supporting documents and evidences to my Case but Judge ruled on Persecutor’s side due to few Misinterpretations but same meaning or point, also i feel that my attorney didn’t do a good job representing me in this case, just to mention i had a different attorney with the first interview.
Now i want to Appeal BIA – and what are the chances to Win the case there , also anyone else i appreciate any similar Experience or with BIA if you can share here, Best of Luck to everyone here,
Just to mention I already spend Over $25k to this point in attorney fees & Mandamus.
I am sorry for the result. It sounds like the problem was inconsistencies between the testimony at the asylum office and in court. The inconsistencies you mention do not seem very significant, but I suppose it depends on exactly what was said in each case and if there are any other inconsistencies. Also, did the Immigration Judge state that he would have denied asylum even if the testimony had been consistent? It can be difficult to get a credibility decision overturned on appeal, as the BIA will not see you and everything is done on paper, but it is possible sometimes. Assuming you can get the credibility finding overturned, you still need to show that you should have received asylum. Also, the Trump Administration fired about half the judges on the BIA and are replacing them with people who are probably more likely to deny. All that said, these appeals can take years, and so maybe things will improve while the case is pending. Take care, Jason
I am sorry you are going through this,
I have quick question, which country are you from and why did they claim conditions are changed? I am from Ethiopia and there was a government change after I arrived in America and I want to learn from your experience.
Thank you so much and good luck
… I’m from Balkan S.E Europe,
Jason Judge didn’t say anything about other decision outcome.
Honestly i know few cases that “were made up stories here” and those stories were sharpen nicely and present to Judge and they were Granted which I’m happy for them, but in my case my attorney told my on the court day that my chances are around 80% to be Granted and he was very comfortable too.
This my story so far to whoever it serves.
Most IJs don’t like asylum seekers
That is not my experience, but these days, it is getting more and more difficult to win in court for a variety of reasons. Take care, Jason
Sorry I hope everything will be good. Don’t lose hope, Good luck!!
Jason
My husband sent an email in february to renew work permit. we got his approval on 10 October 2025. Then again in february another approval came.
We never got his card.
Now the february approval has come again and then the card is going to be produced.
But expiration on card ends in 18 months why?
how could they do that? is this a new thing ?
Please can you let me know if we can call uscis and ask them if they can change the expiration date to 5 years from now and it is a mistake or dont do it >
New cards will be 18 months, though I believe if you filed before December 5, 2025, you will still get a 5-year card. This is a new policy designed to harm asylum seekers (at least in my opinion). I do not know if there are any lawsuits challenging this policy, and I think there is nothing to be done, except to apply as early as possible to renew the work permit once you get the new one. I wrote more about this policy on December 10, 2025. Take care, Jason
Yes Jason we applied in February 2024. This means this was mistake.
Can call USCIS and let them know they sent us two approval notices one with 5 years approval and another with 18 months approval?
What would they say?
This is so confusing as he already has a drivers license with 5 year validy should he call to make changes?
Please help!!
I do not know what the mistake is, sorry. Where a person filed for a new work permit before about December 5, 2025, they get a 5-year work permit. If they filed after that date, they get an 18 month work permit. It does not matter when the person filed for asylum. If the state issued a driver’s license for 5 years, that is fine; I do not think you need to do anything with that, as that is a state policy and they can decide how long to issue the license for. Take care, Jason
Jason, I just watched a video aired via C-SPAN, entitled “Immigration Policy Advocates Discuss the U.S. Asylum System,” moderated by Charles Lane of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. Here are my three cents in the talk, which, I hope, is, at least, worth three cents.
First cent: I thought you did a marvelous job in presenting your case, backing it up with sound arguments. I like how you took Mark Krikorian, of the Center for Immigration Studies, to task on a number of points, disputing his conservative line of thinking. I thought your claim is sound—that the United States ought to preach what it practices (in giving asylum to asylees) because it enshrines such ideals inviolate its constitution. That Mark Krikorian doesn’t see the value of this claim is a testament that he is too deep into his ideology.
Second cent: Debu Gandhi, of the Center for American Progress, was not really submitting his case with the zeal and verve expected of lawyers. At times it seems like he was undercutting his own point by adding too many qualifications and adding hesitancy, which leave the reader to call into question the point he was trying to make.
Third cent: Mark Krikorian, of the Center for Immigration Studies, was forceful and vigorous in making his point and in advancing his claims. The best point I thought he made was his sharp observation that when illegal aliens come “wholesale,” they cannot be deported “retails.” I gather that Mark Krikorian espouse anti-immigrant views, and that he would rather Make American Great Again (read: Make America White Again).
In countries in the Third World, illegal immigration is prosecuted aggressively. For example, if a Somali national crossed the border to Saudi Arabia, he would be lucky if he was deported, for he might be persecuted in there. As a result in the moral conscience of many folks from the Third World, aggressively deporting illegal aliens doesn’t strike them as immoral, not even as inhumane. They, ironically, would share right-wing sensibilities echoed by Mark Krikorian, for he would made a lot of sense to them.
It seems to me that you were advancing the case for immigration, Mark Krikorian the case against immigration, and Debu Gandhi neutral about immigration.
Do you think that the politics of the Immigration Judge (IJ) or Asylum Officer (AO) affect their decision when they are adjudicating asylum cases? For the sake of imagination, let’s say that Mark Krikorian was an IJ or AO. Shouldn’t we expect him to bring conservative, right-wing, anti-immigration interpretation hermeneutics to his reading of the law? And since immigration law is inherently ambiguous, his interpretation would drive the outcome of the case, resulting in denials. I could only imagine if you were an IJ or AO how you would adjudicate such cases—but I’d leave it to you to fill the dots. As for how Debu Gandhi, if he were an IJ or AO, would decide asylum cases, I remain neutral.
What do you think?
Thank you. I think an IJ’s politics can influence decisions. There have been studies about how decisions by judges and AOs are very variable and the difference relates to who is the decision-maker more than the facts of the case itself (the most famous study, which later became a book, is called Refugee Roulette). Whether this correlates with political views, I am not sure, but that makes intuitive sense. I would have liked to have responded more to the “wholesale-retail” argument, as I think that argument seems convincing, but the problem is that governments can grant rights/benefits to individuals “wholesale,” but if they take away those rights/benefits “wholesale,” they end up violating or eliminating due process. It is the price of being a democratic, rule-of-law government that you can only ever take away a person’s rights “retail.” While anti-immigrant people may not like the fact that lots of people came into the US under broad programs like humanitarian parole, to try to remove those people en masse endangers due process for us all (as we are currently seeing in Minnesota and elsewhere). Take care, Jason
Thank you for recommending, Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication and Proposals for Reform, which I plan to read. In the NYU Press website, I read “that life-or-death asylum decisions are too frequently influenced by random factors relating to the decision makers. In many cases, the most important moment in an asylum case is the instant in which a clerk randomly assigns the application to an adjudicator. The system, in its current state, is like a game of chance.” As you said, this make intuitive sense.
I think IJ and AOs have very flexible discretion; they are the consulate officers who adjudicate visa decisions or CBP officers who exercise decisions upon entry or re-entry to the States. Let me tell you, from extensive experience, that such decisions are very, very arbitrary. They don’t follow any discernible pattern. They’re not reasonably objective. They’re very subjective; as a result, one can presume that the personality of the officer has a lot to do with their decision.
When I applied for an F-1 visa to enter the States, it was during the second Obama Administration. I did the interview but the consulate officer rejected me within seconds, without any explanation. For the second time, I changed the location of the consulate, yet I was also rejected within seconds, without any explanations, either. It was a mystifying process indeed. It wasn’t even an interview. It seemed like the consulate officer already made up their mind to reject prior to my arrival. In the third time, I went to the first consulate and luckily I was assigned to a different consulate officer, who, like her two previous officers, didn’t interview me, but who, unlike them, approved my visa. Hence the process refuses to lend itself to explanations or predictions. As a result, I don’t “understand” it, because understanding implies making reasonable predictions.
With CBP officers, it is the same thing. I know people who have spent five hours during interviews upon re-entry; and I know the same people, landing to a different airport, or bumping into a different officer in the same airport, only take 5 minutes to be welcomed.
I think the immigration system is becoming increasingly complex, to the point that one is unable to make explanations or to discern any patterns. It becomes like the medical system of the body in its complexity, where judgement and experience are far more important than explanation and predictions. IJ and AO are like medical doctors. When they see a patient, some IJ and AO might just immediately prescribe this or that for them; but other IJ and AO, in keeping with this analogy, would like to run blood tests and all sorts of necessary and extraneous tests to rule out any other diagnosis before making a decision. I find this medical analogy quite helpful in understanding some parts of the complexity of the immigration system.
In my experience with asylum, good cases tend to succeed and weak case tend to lose. There are a lot of exceptions, but that is my general observation. Of course, these days, everything is getting worse, thanks to numerous arbitrary rule changes and random detentions. Still, it is possible to win asylum, but is requires more work and there is a greater element of luck. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason,
I hope you are well.
I have one question for you today.
My travel document is expiring this month and I want to apply for new one.
Do I need to return my expired travel document with my application ?
Thank you ,
Amanu
Hi Alex,
Have you ever travel with that if yes can you please share your experience about the way coming back an the port of entry at airport please, thank you.
If you are talking about the Refugee Travel Document, and if your current RTD is still valid, you are supposed to return the original when you apply for a new RTD. In your case, if the RTD is about to expire, and you do not need it any more, you can return it with your new application; or if you want to keep it for some reason, you can wait for it to expire before you apply for the new RTD (if it is expired, you do not need to send it when you apply for the new RTD). If you are talking about other types of travel documents, check the instructions, as I think you do not need to send in the original when you apply for most other types of travel documents. Take care, Jason
As an asylee, I filed for asylum on account of persecution of future harm in my country of origin, on the grounds of religious beliefs and political opinions. I made my case in the application itself but also in the affidavit. I showed the completed the application to multiple asylum lawyers: some of them said that my case is strong and that I would make a strong case in the interview just by familiarizing myself with my application materials; other lawyers said that the case is weak because it is based on fear of future prosecution, not of already established past prosecution. I already submitted the application, which is a done fact. And although my biometric appointment has been scheduled, my interview has yet to be scheduled. In the meantime, as I wait for the interview, other than familiarizing myself with my case materials (with which I am very familiar), I have this question: How can I best for the asylum interview, considering that my asylum case is hinged on fear of future prosecution? Are there things that I ought to be doing, such as mock interviews? Or questions that I need to expect and therefore prepare for? Should I treat this asylum interview as a job interview? Perhaps you have written about this somewhere, and I would appreciate your guidance.
I am not sure if Jason responded to you yet; if not, I am sure he’ll respond soon. In the meantime, here is my take on your question:
Under U.S. asylum law, an applicant does not need to show past persecution to qualify for asylum. A claim may be based solely on a well-founded fear of future persecution if the fear is subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable. While past persecution creates a presumption of future harm, its absence does not bar relief. USCIS and EOIR instruct officers and judges to evaluate future-fear claims by examining the applicant’s credibility, country conditions, and the applicant’s specific circumstances.
Asylum officers often ask why harm did not occur in the past and what has changed. Valid explanations include changed personal circumstances, previously concealed beliefs, or worsening country conditions. Applicants are not required to hide or suppress protected beliefs to avoid persecution, and living safely in the past does not defeat a future-fear claim. Consistency between the I-589, written statements, and testimony is critical, and officers may ask detailed questions to assess your credibility and plausibility.
Adjudicators also assess whether the applicant’s fear is supported by consistent testimony, credible personal explanations, and objective country conditions evidence showing how such beliefs are treated in the country of origin. Being persecuted in the past carries weight, but the fear of being persecuted if one is sent back home- if supported by reality and facts- carries just as much weight.
So, clear, truthful explanations of the applicant’s religious practice, changes over time, and how those practices would be perceived upon return are central to evaluating a future-persecution claim.
As usual, I agree with Jamie. Take care, Jason
Thank you very much, Jamie, for this lucid and sound take on my question. It is the real thing, for, as SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart put it: I know it when I see it. Given your solemn legal prose, I safely presume that you are an immigration lawyer—with extensive expertise on asylum law—on your own right. I’m glad that you are weighing in on some of the questions here.
I like your point that the fear of future persecution ought to be “well-founded, subjectively genuine, and objectively reasonable,” all of which are adjudicated and examined through the “applicant’s credibility, country conditions, and the applicant’s specific circumstances.” I also gather that in asylum, a most important factor is consistency, consistency, consistency. Inconsistency calls into question credibility and plausibility.
I am glad to see that Jason agrees with you; he is even saying that over 80% of his cases “had no past persecution and only involved fear of future persecution.” He is also saying that the most important thing is to gather as much credible and consistent evidence as possible—and when evidence are lacking, reasonable explanations are in order.
Most of the case I have done (probably more than 80%) had no past persecution and only involved fear of future persecution. Such cases can win. In terms of how to prepare, the most important thing is to gather as much relevant evidence as you can. I did a post on April 18, 2018 with some ideas about evidence and maybe that would be helpful. Take care, Jason
Their cases will still be weaker than if they have past persecution, other things equal. I think it’s better for them to experience past persecution to strengthen their cases.
Could provoke like … home country’s embassy…increase the chance of approval ? Because increased future risk ?
Lot’s of activities can increase the future risk, but if the decision-maker things you are only doing those activities for purposes of your case, it could impact credibility. Take care, Jason
Hello Jason. Just wanted to thank you first and what you are doing is I don’t have words for that.
I have a question. I came here on P2 status (which is refugee via USRAP) because we worked with US govt. We were referred by the office to state dept and eligible for P2. I have my work exp certificates and also reference by my office. Other than that I have my all docs with me. Do you think it will be enough for USCIS? And yes I have applied for my i-485 two months ago and went to biometric as well. Do you think i should talk to my lawyer and ask for my FOIA from USCIS since I have the work experience with my office (which proves my eligibility for USRAP P2). Or I wait if they ask me for re-interview in case? Since our case were approved in 3rd country after almost three years and we went rigorous interviews and all sort of checks and security. Thanks for your info.
I do expect they will review your case. Whether that will be internal or whether they will contact you, I do not know. If your lawyer has a copy of your FOIA already, it is easy enough for the lawyer to send that to you. While it sounds like you have a very solid case, the purpose of having the FOIA is to see if there is anything of concern there, and be prepared to respond to that if asked. Another purpose is to help you remember your case, so if you are questioned again, you can answer consistently (inconsistent answers can cause USCIS to think you are not telling the truth). I think the vast majority of refugees will be safe and will survive any type of review (though the process itself and waiting for USCIS to do the review is very stressful and upsetting). And in your case, it seems that you should be ok, but there is no harm in having as much info as possible about your old case, so you are as well prepared as possible if they interview you again. Take care, Jason
Thank you.
Do you think they will detain if they ask us to come to interview? I mean what are the chances of getting arrest in these interviews? I am a bit stressed these days to be honest.
There are some examples where people got called for an interview and then detained, but we do not have much info about that, and so I do not know how likely it is that a person would be detained at an interview. I do think you should be prepared for that, just in case. Have a friend or family member with access to your case so they can assist, and if you have a lawyer, make sure the lawyer is informed about the interview and can assist if you are detained. I am hoping that most of the 200,000+ cases they will review will not need interviews, but at this point, we do not know. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
Does the memo apply to all refugees or only to those who belong to banned countries list? I am not from banned country but I arrived on refugee status two years ago.
Additionally, If i do ask about my case info from USCIS, Will it alarm them that this person has been here on refugee status and if he asked for his immigration info, he might be looking for some thing in his file. I mean does it create suspicion so they might pick me for re-interview because i asked for my file info?
Thank you Jason.
As I understand Operation PARRIS, it applies to all refugees who came during the Biden Administration, and so I think it will apply to you. I do not think requesting a copy of your file will have any negative effect. I have never heard about a FOIA request triggering an investigation, and I think it is safe to get the file. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I hope you are doing well.
I wanted to ask for your guidance regarding my current situation. My asylum was approved last year, and I will soon be eligible to apply for adjustment of status (green card).
Unfortunately, I was recently laid off from my job. I am currently pregnant and expecting a baby, and I am considering applying for MassHealth for health insurance coverage for a short period (approximately 6 months) until I secure new employment. COBRA is available to me, but it is extremely expensive.
I have been hearing concerns that using government benefits could negatively impact a future green card application, and I wanted to confirm whether applying for MassHealth would affect my adjustment of status application in any way, given my asylum-based eligibility.
I would really appreciate your advice on whether this is safe to do and if there are any precautions I should be aware of.
Thank you so much for your time and guidance.
Best,
Mina
The concern related to the “public charge” rules, about whether a person needs to use certain government benefits. However, those rules do not apply to asylees or people who file for a Green Card based on asylum. So this should have no effect on your application, as long as you file for the GC based on asylum (and not based on another reason, such as a family petition). Take care, Jason
If I am in TPS, which is ending soon, and I got accepted to a University and they issued me an I-20, upon which I applied for an adjustment of status from TPS to I-20. Can I simply keep both the TPS and the I-20 without doing the adjustment of status? Or do I have to make the adjustment of status? I know people who have both I-20 and TPS. When I make the adjustment from TPS to I-20, am I considered under “authorized stay” from the minute that I submit the adjustment of status? Am I considered lawfully legal the minute the I-20 is issued, or the minute I submit the adjustment of status from TPS to I-20, or the minute the adjustment of status is approved? The I-20 will be issued by the end of February but the academic program will start at the beginning of August of this year. Thanks and take care!
Adjustment of status is when a person gets a green card in the US. I think you want to change status from TPS to F-1 (student status). To change status from TPS to F-1, you file form I-539, and as long as you file that form before TPS ends, you should be eligible to get the F-1 status. Given the long gap between when TPS ends and when school starts, I am not sure whether you would be eligible to change to F-1. I think so, but I am not sure. Maybe the school can assist or you can talk to a lawyer about that. Also, courts have been blocking the Trump Administration from ending TPS for some countries, and so if that happens for you, it may allow you more time to filed the form to change status. Take care, Jason
Quick question, Jason: Do you think TPS for the remaining countries (Lebanon, Yemen, Sudan, Ukraine) might actually be renewed? For example, TPS for Yemen has not been canceled although customarily it would have been cancelled in January 3, 2026, because it is set to expire in March 3, 2026. Or do you think that TPS in and of itself would be abolished as proclaimed in Project 2025—not to mention that the specific TPS of those remaining countries? In Project 2025, they are calling to abolish TPS, just as people are now calling to abolish ICE. Do you think there is a chance that TPS might be renewed or is it just wishful thinking (that it would indubitably be cancelled)?
I am sure the Administration would prefer to end TPS for everyone, but there is a process to end TPS and if they do not follow the process, courts could force DHS to extend TPS, as has happened for several countries. What should happen is that DHS will examine the actual conditions in the home country and decide whether to end TPS, but given that they want to end TPS for countries like Haiti and Ukraine, it is pretty clear that they are not actually considering the conditions in those countries when making their decisions. Take care, Jason
TPS for Yemen is expected to end in March 3, 2026. Normally, a cancellation or an extension should be made 60 days prior to the cancellation day, so in Yemen’s case, it should be decided by January 3, 2026. Thus far, DHS didn’t make any decision—neither cancelling nor extending TPS for Yemen. How do you read DHS’s failure to decide before the 60 days period?
Some sources online—which I wasn’t able to verify their veracity—claims that “if DHS didn’t announce either an extension or a termination before the 60-day window, then, under the statue of the TPS designation, TPS could remain in effect for another 6 months automatically.” According to this statement, a failure from DHS to make a decision 60 days prior to the TPS’s deadline for a specific country grants an automatic extension for 6 months. Is this true? Can DHS wait until the last minute and cancel TPS? Can DHD in March 3, 2026 say that TPS for Yemen is cancelled and give Yemeni TPS beneficiaries another 60 days to deport themselves?
I am not sure how to read the silence on Yemen. I would not be surprised if they cancel TPS, but they need to give some time for people to leave. I am not sure about the legal requirement in that regard. One reason for the delay may be to prevent people from filing a lawsuit to block the decision to end TPS. DHS has tried to end TPS for several countries, but people filed lawsuits and in some cases, courts have prevented DHS from ending TPS, so maybe this is a new strategy. I do think that people who have TPS from Yemen should anticipate that it will end and decide what they will do if that happens. I last wrote about this issue on February 5, 2025 and maybe that would be of interest. Take care, Jason
I have a pending asylum as my status and my work authorization from my TPS expired along with the work authorization card. While I have my asylum pending, and while I am waiting to apply for the work authorization through asylum, in this waiting period, can I work in the gig economy, say with Uber or Lyft or Amazon deliveries? If not, what are the consequences that might ensue from working; Uber, for example, only require a valid driver license and social security, both of which I have, so they would let me work even while I am waiting to apply for the work authorization, but what are consequences of doing so? I work out of necessity, to support myself, or otherwise I wouldn’t be able to survive, let alone thrive, while waiting to hear my case.
You should check to see if TPS for your country was extended. For some countries, courts have blocked the Trump Administration from ending TPS. If that happened, you can continue to work legally. If not, and if you do not already have a valid work permit based on asylum pending, you are not allowed to work under the law. Working without permission would generally have no effect on an asylum case, though USCIS is trying to tighten the rules about this and make it more difficult, I still think that for most people, working unlawfully would not block them from asylum. It could block you from other immigration benefits, for example if you tried to switch to a work visa, but given that you are likely out of status already, that would probably not be possible whether you worked without permission or not. Unfortunately, the way the rules work, it is very difficult for many people to survive without working unlawfully. Take care, Jason
Judge Dugan is convicted because she helps immigrants…
I wonder do people in asylum advocate community fear such retribution from the admin ?
I have a question about ICE’s power to arrest without warrant signed by a judge, for ICE now issue and sign their own warrants, not to mention that an ICE memo expanded the power of ICE agents to actually make arrests without warrants. The New York Time reported this recently. You can read the report (which itself enclosed the ICE memo) by clicking the following hyperlink: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/30/us/politics/ice-expands-power-agents-warrants.html
What do you think of the implications of increasing the power of ICE to arrest without warrants?
We also have seen the deadly consequences of disobeying ICE’s orders. Ms. refused to get out of the car after an ICE agent told her to get out of her car, and as a result of her defiance, she was shot dead. So did Mr. Pretti who resisted ICE agents who were trying to arrest him, and as a result of his resistance he was shot dead.
Which leads me to my question: If ICE agents are killing U.S. citizens for merely disobeying their orders and ICE agents getting away with it, how do you expect ICE agents to deal with an alien who refuses to talk to ICE, refuses to let them in the house without a warrant? What do you think an alien should do when ICE shows up in their house? We know the legal spiel of not letting them unless they have a warrant signed by a judge and of not talking to them unless there is a lawyer present—but would that stop ICE agents from breaking the door, from deploying psychological warfare tactics to intimidate the alien and coerce them to speak with them? What would prevent ICE agents from acting aggressively if the aliens chose not to speak with them or to let them into their own houses (acts that might be seen by ICE as resistance and defiance)?
What do you think is the best strategy for aliens to deal with ICE when stopped at the house or in public?
I recently met a lawyer, and discussed with him ICE. The lawyer said that it is illegal for ICE to enter a house, a sanctuary place in his mind, without a warrant signed by a judge. But I reminded the lawyer that ICE indeed entered many houses without a judicial warrants, as they issue their own warrants. He said that is illegal and they shouldn’t do that. But “shouldn’t do that” is different than them “actually doing that.” In fact, ICE recently issued a memo in which they appear to say that ICE agents can arrest without warrants. The New York Times discussed the implications of this memo in this piece (link here: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/30/us/politics/ice-expands-power-agents-warrants.html). The link to the ICE memo is here (which is also hyperlinked in the NYT piece): https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/e3524bab7246ffa8/0e6654f6-full.pdf
Question: When ICE comes to a house, should the alien refuse entry, telling them that they need to show him a judicial warrant? Is that position risky, as we all now saw what ICE can do when their commands are disobeyed. If ICE killed a woman (Ms. Good—a U.S. citizen) for refusing to get out of her car and for driving away, what can we expect ICE to do when an alien refuse them entry to a house? Although lawyers seem to say that it is illegal for them to break into house, we know that it is illegal for them to kill too, yet they killed when their orders are disobeyed. So what do you expect ICE agents will do when an alien tells them that they won’t talk to them and won’t let them into the house until they have a warrant signed by a judge? I am not asking what is legal or illegal for them to do; I am asking what ICE agents are likely to do when they are being denied entry to a house.
Also we know that a person can exercise the right to remain silent. But that is resistance to ICE, who seem not trained to de-escalate situations but rather to escalate situations. So when an alien tells ICE that they won’t talk with them, unless they have a lawyer present, what ICE agents will do in that particular moment? Again, I am not asking on what is legal and illegal; I am asking about what is likely to happen, what ICE agents will likely do. I say this because we all have seen the consequences of disobeying the orders of ICE, which include violent arrests and even death, which lead me to ask: Isn’t better just to comply with ICE? If Ms. Good complied with the ICE officer who told her to get out of the car, might she actually saved her life? If Alex Pretti complied with the agents and didn’t resist their arrest, might he actually saved himself from being shot and killed? What are your recommendations for aliens to deal with ICE, from a practical point of view, not from a theoretical point of view (of what is legal and illegal)?
I agree that it is illegal for ICE to enter a house without a warrant from a judge, but they are clearly doing that anyway. However, as with much of this, it is difficult to know how widespread the problem is. ICE is reportedly also using trickery to enter homes, lying about why they are there. And they can present an ICE document, which they call a warrant. There are website to help distinguish between a judicial warrant and an ICE “warrant” (for example: http://www.aclunorcal.org/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-immigration-enforcement-and-warrants/), but I am not sure how a person will do that in the moment, when heavily armed people are at the door pointing guns at you. I think some people do, as we also hear about examples where people refuse entry and ICE leaves. Again, how often that happens, I do not know. Ideally, people will be familiar with the different types of warrants and refuse entry to ICE agents without a proper warrant. If ICE enters the house anyway, I suppose the people inside will need to surrender. Hopefully the person or neighbors can document the incident and maybe that will help later on. In terms of talking, if you refuse to talk, ICE could arrest you, as they presumably believe you are a non-citizen (either because they have specific info about you, or because they are making assumptions about you due to your physical appearance, accent, job, etc.). In some cases, if you are stopped and questioned, you are required to give basic info to ICE. I wrote about that here: http://www.asylumist.com/2020/10/07/what-to-do-if-you-are-stopped-by-ice/. I do not think that failure to talk to ICE would result in them killing you, as we do not have examples of that happening. The two people killed by ICE were in more dynamic situations, and while the killings were completely unjustified (as I see them), those situations were very different than a person being held in ICE custody and refusing to talk until they get a lawyer. Take care, Jason
Thanks for your 2020 blog on asylum. I did not know that ICE was a thing in 2020, as I, like most people, was oblivious to them. Only when ICE broke into the national conscience did I become aware of their presence. In reading your piece, the following sentence struck me: “If an ICE officer asks for your immigration papers, you are required to produce your documents. If you do not have your papers with you, you can inform the officer that you wish to remain silent or that you wish to call an attorney.” Ditto to this sentence: “Be aware that in some states, you are required to give your name to law enforcement.” What I take from these two sentences is that when ICE comes to a person, that person is required by law to give them his name and to produce his immigration papers. He cannot appeal and invoke the 5th amendment to exercise his right to remain his silent; he has to furnish them with these two pieces of information and then remain silent and require access to legal counsel. Is my interpretation of your instructions accurate?
I think when ICE or the police encounters immigrants, the immigrants get scared. Where they come from, resistance the police or government officials is, in and of itself, a crime. Imagine a person in Saudi Arabia resisting the orders of government officials. (For example, see the Jamal Khashoggi’s case who defied the orders of Saudi officials and was, as a result, killed.) So immigrant hailing from such authoritarian countries, where the rule of law is arbitrary, not complying with ICE or government officials is unheard of. In fact, we know that many immigrants welcome the feds, including the FBI to their homes; they give them tea and coffee and they host them to lunch and dinner. Not only do they cooperate with them but they go beyond that—hosting them and showing them generosity. Is this approach effective? I know some folks who did that and were fine. I also know some folks who tried to remain silent and insist not to talk unless their lawyer is present—and in these cases the law enforcement would escalate the situation and do things off-the book. What is your reactions to these realities?
ICE was much less prominent and also less aggressive back in 2020. In terms of what to do if you encounter ICE, there should be a link in that article to a website that has info about different state laws and what a person is required to tell law enforcement. However, an immigration agent can ask about your status and you are required to show your immigration documents. Regarding how to act in the presence of ICE (at home or on the street), I do not think there is an answer to this question. If ICE wants to detain a person, for the most part, they will detain that person if they can. Behaving nicely will likely not help. I do think it is very important to not resist, as we have seen what ICE can do. I also think people should not allow ICE into their house without a judicial warrant, but I get that in the moment, it is very difficult to tell them “no.” I also agree that the idea of saying no to law enforcement in countries like Saudi Arabia is unheard of. Unfortunately, at least as far as non-citizens are concerned, we are probably already an authoritarian state, at least as far as interactions with ICE is concerned. Take care, Jason
Been married to my USC spouse for 4 years but didn’t have the funds to initiate the immigration process . Im a pending affirmative asylee from a full banned country with their cases on hold . We just filled my green card but also have the asylum interview coming up next month, I’ve been dealing with some health issues since pandemic that has affected my in person church attendance, so most of my hard evidence of attendance is pre pandemic. How does it affect my asylum case ? I also can’t find the fillings and statement In my original asylum case. How do I get a copy as soon as possible before the interview? If Im referred to court how screwed am I ? What happens to my case to my green card case in USCIS which is on hold apparently
For your asylum case, it sounds like it is based on a religious conversion, and for such cases, you need to prove that you actually converted. Otherwise, the asylum office may think you only converted as a way to get asylum. You should gather whatever evidence you can about your conversion, including letters from people who know you, letter from your church, photos at church events, receipts for donations or membership in religious organizations, medical evidence to explain why you rarely attend church now, etc. In terms of getting a copy of your case, you can do a Freedom of Information Act request – you can follow the link under Resources called FOIA USCIS. I think you should request the file, but I doubt you will get it before the interview. You can ask them to expedite the request and it is worth a try. In terms of the marriage, and assuming you are eligible to get the GC based on your marriage, you will have to decide whether to file now or wait for the decision in the asylum case. If you file the marriage case and then get referred to court before it is decided, there is a risk that you will have to pay the green card fee again + there is an additional fee for people getting the GC in court. I do think the better approach is to file for the marriage-based GC if you can afford that. Even if the case is referred to court, at least the marriage case has been started, and hopefully, you will be able to avoid paying the GC fee two times. If you win asylum, you can still get the marriage-based GC and getting a GC through marriage to a US citizen allows you to apply for your own US citizenship more quickly. The only disadvantage of filing the marriage case is that it is expensive. That said, apostasy cases can be very strong, especially if you come from a country like Iran where apostasy is punishable with death, and it would be very worthwhile to gather as much evidence as possible about the conversion so you can hopefully present a strong case and receive asylum (once the hold ends). Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I have got two questions.
One is recent court order which stops ICE from detaining refugees (accoring to IRAP). What does this mean for refugees all around the US?
Secondly, I have a friend who came here in US via TPS two years ago. Recently they terminated the TPS status for Haitian. His work permit expires 2nd of Feb 2026 and he will be out of Job as he is told he cant continue his job because of the work permit. He works at the airport and has a decent job and position. When I talked to him that he should apply for the asylum he told me that his lawyer told that he cant apply for asylum as he has been here for two years.
As an attorney, What should he do in order to be safe and particularly from ICE, and also what option he has as of now, so he is able to stay in US with his family. Thank you Jason.
1 – I have not seen the court order yet. ICE does not have a great record of following court orders, or the law in general, but hopefully it is meant to stop the random detentions of refugees before there is even any evidence of fraud. 2 – If he has a fear of returning to Haiti, he certainly can apply for asylum. Why any lawyer would say otherwise, I do not know, as that is clearly wrong. He should try to apply for asylum before TPS ends, as being in TPS status can be an exception to the one-year filing rule. I wrote more about the one-year bar on January 18, 2018, but if he wants to file for asylum, he should file as soon as possible. It takes some time to get a work permit after he files for asylum, and so unless a court blocks the end of TPS for Haiti (which may happen), he will lose the ability to work, at least for a while. However, if he has the asylum receipt, that allows him to stay in the US and so that should give him some protection from ICE. Take care, Jason
https://refugeerights.org/news-resources/court-orders-ice-to-stop-unlawful-arrest-and-detention-of-refugees
This is the recent post by IRAP which i have pasted above. If you have time please read and elaborate for us so we, refugees can relax and have some peace.
Do you think that they will detain every refugee they will ask them to appear before USCIS? Just curious because I just go my biometric done last month and i am on the banned countries list. However, we came here on P2 status and currently are on refugees status and my green card is also pending.
I do not think all refugees would be detained even without this order, but this is good news and – at least for now – prevents ICE from randomly detaining refugees prior to reviewing their refugee status. The stated purpose of Operation PARRIS is to review all refugee approvals during the Biden Administration, but we do not know how this review will be done. For some people, the review was done by detaining them, shipping them to Texas, and then interrogating them. Hopefully, the judge’s order will stop that practice (DHS could appeal). However, we do not know how other refugee cases will be re-evaluated. This may be an internal process where cases are reviewed and then suspicious cases are flagged for an interview, or maybe everyone will be re-interview, though given the large number of people, that seems like a difficult task. Anyway, the lawsuit is good news, as there have been far too few checks on ICE’s actions. Take care, Jason
Thanks Jason.
Do you think those detained had some criminal records or some thing in their file that is why they were detained? Because if they start detaining every refugees who are already vetted before they entered US, then its gonna be a big issue for them too? Maybe they will interview those who have suspicious record and some element of doubt in their case. For example for our case, who have come on P2 type visas who have worked with US govt and agencies when they were in Afghanistan, do you think they will also be called for interview? Because they have already fulfilled the criteria for eligibility for that visa.
I don’t have any inside information about the people who have been detained, but my sense is that some have criminal records and some do not. It’s not clear exactly why certain people without criminal issues have been detained, and I would not be surprised if it is just random luck. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that Afghans who worked with the U.S. are exempt from review or detention. We have been seeing more and more Afghans who entered at the U.S.-Mexico border being detained, and while these people are in a different position legally from Afghan refugees (including P2 visas), I think it is still best to have a copy of your file and a plan in case you are targeted. That said, any Afghan who worked with the U.S. government should have evidence about that and it seems unlikely that such a person would lose their status (unless fraud or a criminal issue is uncovered). Take care, Jason
Hello Jason and hope everyone is doing well. Could you please tell us what is a recommended by immigration lawyers in the current situation where a naturalized citizen is ambushed and detained? We do not carry our passports daily and I am not even sure it matters if we are carrying one. I have heard that in many cases, even birth certificates having been considered suspicious for Brown looking people. I guess it is better to have a legally valid plan in case something happens. There have been many cases of citizens being detained, taken to holding centers and kept there. It makes it worse for people like me who initially entered as a refugees or Asylees as we are the targets. Would appreciate your response Jason.
I would take a photo of your passport, Naturalization Certificate, or other evidence of citizenship, and I would have access to that (on your phone, for example), so you can show it to an agent who asks for it. While I think this is terrible and we should be fighting against it, that is where we are, and it is better to have these documents to help you avoid any trouble. That said, I think it is easy to over-estimate the risk, as we see lots of videos of US citizens being detained and harassed. While this is a problem, I think the likelihood of any one US citizen–even a black or brown person–being detained is very low, and you can probably avoid that by showing a photo of your passport (I have heard at least one example where that happened). In other words, the government is trying to terrify people, and you should do your best not to let them get to you. There really is a very low probability of any trouble for US citizens, and so you should be ok. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I’m going to a psychologist/psychiatrist for evaluation on mental harm or PTSD, do you have any suggestions on how to best prepare for appointments like this? Thank you!
I did a post about expert reports in general on October 14, 2020, and there I discuss mental health reports. Maybe that would be helpful. One way to prepare is to bring a copy of your case to the doctor to have that available to review when they make their evaluation. If you have evidence of mental or physical harm, such as prior medical documents, bring those as well. Otherwise, my feeling about these evaluations is that they are more useful if they are done by a treating therapist, as opposed to a therapist you visit only once or twice, who then writes a report that you have PTSD. A treating therapist will know you much better and can write a more credible report. At least that is my opinion. Take care, Jason
There are people who couldn’t afford therapy…does that mean they will have weaker evidence/portfolio compared to an otherwise similarly situated person but who can afford to go to therapy and obtain that “credible report” ?
They will have weaker cases. That is common for many types of evidence and many types of law, unfortunately: a person often gets the justice that they can afford. Take care, Jason
I mean…I am hoping that you don’t mean this is what is supposed to be and we will just let it be ?
Theoretically, for equitable reasons…people who lack funds to attend therapy should be given some assistance to attend those therapy right ? I think an asylum fund account should be set up by asylum advocates to help poor asylum seekers to attend psychotherapy so that they can also produce credit report and have a fair chance to fight their case…
Hey, everyone! I hope all is well. I haven’t commented here in a VERY LONG time.
Here are my two cents on what’s happening:
This article is concerning, not because fraud prevention is illegitimate, but because of how Operation PARRIS appears to be carried out (OBVIOUSLY). Refugees are ALREADY among the MOST thoroughly vetted people admitted to the United States, and reopening of thousands of cases years after approval undermines the basic promise of refugee protection: safety and stability. Re-reviewing (emphasis double “re”) cases without individualized suspicion risks turning refugee status into something temporary and fragile rather than a meaningful legal safeguard.
What is more troubling, to me, are the due process implications (violations, if you will). Under 8 C.F.R. § 207.9, USCIS must provide written notice of intent to terminate refugee status and give the individual 30 days to respond with evidence. Detaining refugees during interviews, transferring them far from family and legal counsel (effectively deny them access to legal counsel), or pressuring them to “self-deport” raises serious questions about whether these protections are being honored. As the Supreme Court has made clear, even in recent times, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause applies to all persons in the United States, including non-citizens.
Fraud should be addressed when there is credible evidence of fraud, but sweeping retroactive reviews tied to a particular time period—and coupled with detention tactics—risk punishing people before any wrongdoing is established. It also reeks of malice, and it demonstrates that the actions by USCIS against these refugees are arbitrary. Refugee protection is not discretionary goodwill; it is a legal commitment under U.S. law. At a minimum, any re-verification effort must be transparent, individualized (case-by-case), and fully respectful of due process, or it risks doing lasting harm to people who were promised protection.
Hi Jamie,
Good to see you comment on here.
This is the Trump administration we are talking about. Nothing is too cruel and nothing is off the table. The sooner we get that, the better. This is an administration that has a history of bypassing congress and disregarding international conventions/agreements and the Supreme Court seems unwilling/uninterested to intervene.
I am sorry to say this, but immigrants are currently not safe here. Hopefully a change of regime in the coming years; or even Democrats taking back congress and putting a pause to the senseless attacks on immigrants (Note: Democrats are not particularly in a hurry to help immigrants either, they are very good at gaslighting though) will bring things back to some sort of normalcy.
I can’t say I disagree with your comments about Democrats (sadly), but I do think they certainly did not create the atmosphere of terror for non-citizens and friends/family of non-citizens that we see now. No matter how imperfect they are, I think we need to be working hard to elect Democrats, as they are democratic and they are much less bad for immigrants. Take care, Jason
I mean, democrats have a purity problem.
To them, it’s my way or the high way.
People criticize Kamala Harris for the smallest things and give great immunity to the current admin. And they actually refuse to vote for Harris because “she is not inspiring”. I never see this type of fracture in republicans. Across the incumbent’s 3 elections, he never got less than 46% percent, that’s his base. He doesn’t even have to fight for it, they stuck with him. And I think it’s a bad position for any challenger or opponent. I think it’s a very big problem. If the fundamental population of the country are almost-majorly against asylum seekers then it’s very concerning. It’s a very difficult task in any election to make sure that at least 46% voters will come out and vote for the challenger and at the same time, the remaining 8% not breaking in favor of the admin, and there is also the pro-republican electoral college map. So…I think asylum advocates’ biggest job for the next decade is to increase pro-asylum population and decrease anti-asylum population. If there are enough anti-asylum population, no matter how diligent asylum advocates are. These anti-asylum population will, through electing MAGA, negate any gains made by the asylum advocate community
Very nice to hear from you. I hope you are well. I agree with all this. I certainly think this whole effort is designed to instill fear and in particular, to target people from Somalia, who the President and his Administration have repeatedly disparaged. I do expect that they will find some actual fraud (for example, during the Amerasian resettlement from Vietnam, many “family members” were not in fact related, but they joined together to help each other escape a bad situation). However, the method of basically snatching people off the street, terrorizing them, shipping them to (at best) inadequate detention facilities, and then asking questions and looking for inconsistencies or other issues, is not designed to reach the truth. It is designed to disorient people and cause them to make mistakes in their testimony or to just give up and agree to leave (which few people will do, given that most will have no place to return to). In other words, the effort to search for fraud is itself a fraud. We will see how things play out, but obviously many people will be harmed in the process. In the end, I think that very few will actually be deported. Take care, Jason
I am not discounting the two minnesotians’ death.
But many died long before that, people die in detention and after asylum denial/removal…
Why it took 2 US citizens death to finally turn the public opinion ?
Are their life truly more valuable than many who died in detention and after asylum denial/removal ?
Perhaps it was the fact that they were pretty obviously murdered and then the government very obviously lied about what we could clearly see in the videos. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
Scary times indeed. My question is about refugees who already obtained their green cards. What is the possibility that they will ultimately be detained and send to other states pending review of the original refugee case? My understanding is that permanent residents have some sort of protection against arbitrary detentions, have some rights, and are eligible for bonds.
I have not yet heard about efforts to re-evaluate people who already have GCs. Also, Operation PARRIS seems only to be targeting people who got refugee status during President Biden’s term. This is a little unclear, and of course, the targeted group could change, but if you entered as a refugee before (or after) President Biden’s term, you may not be subject to re-evaluation. While we are hearing about some random detentions of refugees in Minnesota, it is difficult to know how common this is, and I have not yet heard about it targeting anyone with a GC. If GC holders are targeted, they do have a right to due process and should also be eligible for bond (though if they have criminal or national security issues, or are deemed a flight risk, bond could be denied). I think for people with GCs, they should be safe, at least for now, and I think there is not much to do, aside from obtaining a copy of your immigration file so you have that if you ever need it. Take care, Jason
Hi Jason,
I received asylum about a year ago I completely forgot to update the social security. Is it important to do so? Worried that Ice might be there at social security offices . So wondering how important it is? No criminal record at all just not sure if I need to update asap
Thanks
I don’t think it is that important. You should keep the same number, it’s just that the new card would not be “restricted.” If you have asylum status, I do not think you should be at risk from ICE. Also, maybe you can check the SS website for guidance about getting the unrestricted card without physically going to their office (I am not sure whether this is possible, but maybe). Take care, Jason
I would like to invite your thoughts on the following subject of political theater (fiction) vs. lived reality (nonfiction). I’ll share my case as an immigrant and then invite your thoughts. You can perhaps choose to make a blog post around this idea of fiction vs. nonfiction when it comes to immigration.
I’m a citizen of one of the countries in the full travel ban. When I applied for F-1, it was during the second Obama Administration, and my F-1 application was rejected, twice. It was accepted during the first Trump Administration. So I landed in the States during the first Trump Administration. The political theater during that time was up and down, but the lived reality of immigrants was fine: Asylum cases were approved, visas are issued. In fact, having lived during the first Trump Administration and then during the first Biden Administration, I did not discern any major difference, other than the former stages political theaters and the latter doesn’t.
But this changed during the second Trump Administration: We see an increase in political theater, which created many irrational fear; and we also see many major differences in lived realities, such as the deployment of ICE, an agency that many people never heard of until recently. Also in the second Trump Administration, we see visas (both immigrant and nonimmigrant) being suspended, asylum cases being paused and halted, and many rushed mistakes are being made, including deportations from the other country, and in some tragic cases, deportation from life itself.
My question to you as an immigration expert who has witnessed many Administrations, including the first and the second Trump Administrations: What is the major differences in both political theater (fiction) and lived reality (nonfiction) between the first Trump Administration and second Trump Administration?
I ask this question because the political theater created irrational fear among many immigrants, and even among American citizens, both born-and-raised Americans and naturalized Americans. I know naturalized Americans going around carrying their American passport with them, their certificate of naturalization, and any evidence they can marshal to prove their Americanness. Is this irrational fear? I also know some born-and-raised Americans who are carrying their passports, too, lest they get swamped under the immigration clampdown. Is this irrational fear?
I ask these questions because even though I am a citizen from one of the fully banned countries, I traveled using the travel document of the TPS. When I came back to the States, it was during the height of immigration crackdown; so I was ready for some scrutiny as re-enter, knowing the Customer Border Protection (CBP) has full discretion to either admit or deny my re-entry. At best, I thought that I am going to get the standard procedure that many Green Card holders get; at worst, I was ready for an extended interview where my phone would be reviewed and so on.
Yet surprisingly, none of that happened. When I landed in the airport, the CBP officer didn’t ask me any question whatsoever, not even where was I coming from, which is astonishing especially since that my travel document was expiring within two days of my arrival. The CBP officer said two things to me: “Welcome back,” and then as a matter of courtesy he told me that my travel document expires within two days so I cannot re-use it to travel again, which I already knew but I appreciated his reminder. Now this lived experience flies in the face of the political theater in the air; in fact, I know some people whose immigration status is similar mine who have been scrutinized for hours in airports re-entry during the Obama Administration and Biden Administration.
Which brings me back to my question: What is fiction (political theater) and what is nonfiction (lived reality)? What is justified fear vs. irrational fear? In one of your posts, you said that the current Administration’s mass deportation efforts is targeting folks who crossed the border (and therefore are considered in the interpretation of the current Administration to be illegal aliens even if they have pending asylum cases). Yet I know many folks who entered the States legally through a visa, and who are afraid and therefore are home-bound, not going anywhere. Is that irrational fear? Are they negatively impacted by the political theater that this current Administration does so well?
This is a long comment, but I hope that it would clarify the air and lead people to make informed, justified decisions.
I think there are similarities to what you call “political theater” and things like terrorism or school shootings. Is it irrational to fear terrorism? Or school shootings? Objectively, the odds of being harmed in such an event are very low, but because the harm is high profile, it creates a fearful atmosphere. That is clearly part of the intent with terrorism (and school shootings as well), and to me, is clearly part of the intent with the current immigration crackdown. For me, the fear that non-citizens and minorities are facing is not irrational at all. When you see the aggressive and often violent tactics of ICE, the degrading and sometimes dangerous conditions in detention centers, and the many sneaky legal and bureaucratic tricks being used to arbitrarily block people from obtaining benefits that they qualify for, I think there are real reasons to be afraid. The question is, what can be done about this by the targeted people? Living with constant fear or in hiding is not a great solution, but non-citizens only have so much that is within their control. I think trying to evaluate the actual risk (which is worse for people who entered at the border, for example) and having a plan in place in case something happens are two things that people can do. Finding comfort in other activities, such as family, friends, religion, jobs, hobbies, nature, etc. can also help. Protesting and trying to cause political change is another activity that we can help and that feels empowering. While I think the fear is real, and largely beyond our control, what I think is more important is how we respond in order to take care of ourselves and others. Take care, Jason
Thanks for your spot on response. I think an analogy here is in order: We know that airplane accidents are, objectively, rare than car accidents; but airplane accidents are high-profile than car accidents. As a result, we have some people who are afraid from travelling via airplanes more than through cars. Why? Because they are afraid from the high-profile calamities of airplane crashes. This is airplane crashes—objectively rare but high-profile—are like the political theater caused by the current immigration clampdown. These are all examples of what psychologists called “availability heuristic” or “availability bias” or “cognitive bias,” which has been documented to lead to bad-decision making because it is a systematic error in thinking. So perhaps because people can call up such images easily in their minds, they can overestimate the damage to disproportionate measures.
Yes, and the Trump Administration knows about this and so their attacks on immigrants are designed to take advantage of this bias, just as terrorists do. I will say that I am one of those people who fears flying. For me, it is largely a control issue, and so I think my fear is perfectly logical…
Good morning, Jason.
I have my asylum interview scheduled for next week. I understand that there is currently uncertainty regarding when USCIS issues decisions due to the existing hold, but I wanted to ask for your opinion based on your experience.
In your view, how long does it might take to receive a decision after the interview in situations like this? And if the hold remains in place for an extended period, do you think there may be any option to request an expedited decision?
I have been waiting for my interview since mid-2016, which has already been a long process. The possibility that a decision could take several more years is discouraging, so I wanted to understand what to realistically expect.
For context, I am from Ukraine.
Thank you in advance for your time and insight.
Unfortunately, there is no way to know how long the hold will last. Ukraine is not a “banned” country and so maybe the hold will be lifted sooner for Ukraine. Even without the hold, wait times for a decision were unpredictable, but for most people from non-Muslim countries, the wait time is probably between a few weeks and a few months. If the hold is not lifted, I suppose you could file a lawsuit to get the decision, but such a lawsuit would likely be complicated (and expensive). The asylum officers I spoke with about the hold seem to think it will be lifted in the next months, but I am not sure if that is their best guess, or they actually have some inside info. Take care, Jason