Over the summer, the U.S. government proposed a set of regulations that will dramatically change asylum law. In response, the general public and immigrant advocates submitted close to 90,000 public comments. After receiving the comments, the government changed some of the proposed rules (slightly), but the new rules are set to go into effect on January 11, 2021.
There will likely be legal challenges (lawsuits) to try to stop these regulations from going into effect. But, it’s always hard to tell what will happen. For that reason, if you plan to file for asylum, it is best to do so before January 11, when the new rules go into effect.
President Trump’s parting gift to the asylum system.
One of the changes made between July 15, 2020 (the proposed rule) and December 2020 (the final rule) is that the new rules will not be retroactive. This means that they will not apply to anyone who has filed their I-589 application for asylum before January 11, 2021. The government has stated that the new rules will apply now, despite any legal challenges to any sections that the government views as simply codifying existing case law–
Although the rulemaking itself is not retroactive, nothing in the rule precludes adjudicators from applying existing authority codified by the rule to pending cases, independent of the prospective application of the rule. Accordingly, the statutory authority and case law incorporated into the rule, as reflected in both the [notice of proposed rulemaking] and the final rule, would continue to apply if the rule itself does not go into effect as scheduled.
Regardless of retroactivity issues, it is likely much better for asylum seekers to have their applications filed prior to January 11, 2021. This is especially true for people fleeing harm from non-government actors, for asylum seekers fleeing gender-based harm, and for individuals who have spent time in another country before coming to the United States.
If you are seeking asylum, please consult with an immigration attorney as soon as possible. An I-589 asylum application takes hours to properly fill out, and you will need to have time to work with an attorney to prepare your application and get it mailed before January 11, 2021.
The President and his allies are doing everything in their power to subvert the result of last month’s election. So far, their efforts have not changed the outcome, but we are still in a very dangerous place. Hopefully, the system and our country will withstand this unprecedented assault on democracy and the rule of law. If so, and if Joe Biden assumes office in January, he will face a number of daunting challenges: The pandemic and healthcare, the economy, climate change, divisiveness and decaying faith in democracy, racial justice, and immigration reform, to name the most obvious. How much attention immigration–and specifically asylum–will receive in this mix remains to be seen.
Prior to the election, the Democratic Party and the Biden campaign set forth their proposals for immigration reform, which are quite sweeping. Many of Mr. Biden’s ideas can only be enacted with the cooperation of Congress. Others could be put into effect without Congressional action, just as President Trump implemented his immigration agenda through agency rulemaking and executive orders.
A minority of the immigration policy changes proposed by Mr. Biden relate specifically to asylum, and most of these concern asylum seekers at the Southern border. This is not surprising, as the border is a disaster, but my concern is that applicants at the Asylum Office and in Immigration Court–which together represent close to two million people–will be overlooked.
Kudos for Biden; Coup Don’ts for Trump.
In this series of posts, I hope to set forth my ideas for reforming and improving our nation’s asylum system.
Before we discuss substance, however, I want to talk politics, since any reform will take place in the context of the current political crisis where, even in the best case, millions of Americans will view Mr. Biden’s Administration as illegitimate and where many Republican leaders will be vying to outdo each other in obstructing the new President’s agenda. The divisive political climate will potentially limit Mr. Biden’s ability to make changes, and in turn, any changes he manages to implement could lead to further division. This begs the question: Should the new Administration follow the Trump game plan, and do all within its power to achieve its goals? Or is it better to focus on areas of bipartisan agreement (if any can be found)?
I’m of two minds about this dilemma. On the one hand, non-citizens in our country have been treated unfairly and cruelly. They have been lied about (and to), terrorized, exploited, and in many cases, forced to wait for years for status to which they are legally entitled. Also, when President Obama tried to take a middle road on immigration (remember when he was referred to as the “Deporter-in-Chief”?), it did nothing to move the other side towards compromise. Perhaps that’s because there is a stark partisan divide over illegal immigration: Only 23% of Democrats view it as a “big problem,” while 67% of Republicans see it that way. So if compromise is impossible, maybe the Biden Administration’s better approach is to implement whatever reforms it can manage regardless of the political consequences.
On the other hand, what is most needed now is to try to heal the divisions in our nation. Pushing through partisan immigration reforms (legislatively or administratively) will likely exacerbate the divide. Further, if President Biden overplays his hand on immigration, it could result in a backlash that advantages Republicans and other immigration restrictionists. Of course, the same predicament exists for other issues–like climate change–and the idea of waiting for a broader consensus when action is needed imminently makes little sense. Immigrants and asylum seekers urgently need relief and protection. So while ideally I believe it would be best to reach out to moderate Republicans and to continue working to educate the public about immigration, I also believe that we need to start enacting changes immediately.
That said, I think the Biden Administration needs to move with caution. Some immigration issues–such as DACA and (surprisingly) refugee resettlement–have broader bipartisan support than others, such as border security and deporting people who are here illegally. Certainly, the new Administration can focus on areas where it will encounter less resistance and face fewer negative repercussions.
The proposals I will make in this series fall, I think, on the more bipartisan side of the spectrum. I plan to discuss ideas for improving efficiency and fairness at the Asylum Office, the Immigration Court, and at USCIS.
In contrast to Mr. Biden’s pre-election policy agenda, my focus in this series will not be the Southern border. Protecting asylum seekers at the border is a more divisive issue than most other areas of immigration law, and I believe that advocates and policy-makers need to lay a political foundation before enacting successful change there. I’ve written about this in more detail before, but unless we build a more bipartisan consensus about who is eligible for asylum, we risk a severe backlash by easing restrictions at the Southern border. Indeed, one could argue that President Trump was elected largely as a reaction against perceived porous borders.
While the politics of border reform is a crucial concern, the situation along the U.S.-Mexico border is clearly untenable–people are dying and something needs to be done. How the Biden Administration will navigate that political minefield, I do not know, but I worry that the political capital required for improving conditions at the border will make it more difficult to enact needed changes in other, less politically-charged regions of the immigration system, such as USCIS, the Asylum Office, and the Immigration Court. In any event, those three areas will be the subject of the next several posts on this blog.
President Trump’s (hoped for) departure will open up some space to improve the situation for non-citizens: By reversing many of his Administration’s damaging immigration policies, but also–hopefully–by bringing long-needed improvements to the immigration system. The trick will be to balance that change with the current political realities, to minimize the inevitable counter-reaction, and to avoid doing further damage to the cohesion of our nation.
The final step in the asylum journey is U.S. citizenship. When an asylee applies for citizenship, there are some unique issues to be aware of, and we’ll discuss those here.
First, let’s talk about the time frame. If you are a regular reader of this blog, you probably already know that the wait time for an asylum case is unpredictable. Some (lucky few) people file a case and complete it within a few months, but the large majority of asylum applicants wait years for a decision. If you win your asylum case at the Asylum Office or in Immigration Court, you have asylum status, and are eligible to file for your Green Card after one year of physical presence in the U.S. This means that if you leave the United States during this period, you have to wait additional time to apply for the Green Card. For example, if you leave the country for two weeks, you have to wait one year and two weeks from the date you received asylum before you are eligible to apply for a Green Card.
The time frame to process a Green Card is also unpredictable. If you check the USCIS processing times, you will see that wait times range from under one year to over 3½ years. In my practice, most asylees seem to get their Green Cards in one or two years. When an asylee receives a Green Card, the card is back-dated one year. Meaning, if you receive your Green Card on December 1, 2020, the card will indicate that you have been a lawful permanent resident (a Green Card holder) since December 1, 2019. Most people will be eligible to file for citizenship five years after the date listed on the Green Card (so in this example, December 1, 2024). And in fact, you are allowed to mail the citizenship form (the N-400) up to 90 days before the five-year anniversary (in our example, this would be about September 2, 2024). That said, if you leave the United States for significant periods of time, or for any one trip of six months or more, or if you’ve recently moved to a new state, you might have to wait longer than five years to apply for citizenship.
If you apply for asylum now, you should be a U.S. citizen by the time Barron Trump runs for President.
Processing times for the N-400 are also all over the map, but most offices seem to complete their cases between six months and two years after filing. So overall, from filing for asylum to becoming a U.S. citizen, most applicants are looking at a wait time of between eight and 13 years.
Now let’s talk about some of the challenges asylum seekers face on the path to becoming U.S. citizens.
First is the Green Card form, the I-485, itself. The problem here is that this form contains dozens of questions, many of which are quite confusing. Mistakes on this form can lead to issues during the naturalization process. I’ve written previously about some of the pitfalls on the I-485. The problem is compounded by the fact that most principal asylees are not interviewed during the Green Card process, and so a USCIS officer never asks you to clarify or correct your answers on the I-485 (dependent asylees are supposed to all be interviewed during the Green Card process, but this does not always happen). Thus, if you make a mistake on the I-485, or if your answers between the I-589 (the asylum form) and the I-485 are inconsistent, this could cause problems at the naturalization stage, and could even cause USCIS to deny your application for citizenship.
The best way to protect yourself here is to make sure that the I-485, the I-589, and any other forms or visa applications you submitted are consistent–in terms of addresses, jobs, family members, membership in organizations, arrests (including political arrests), lies to the U.S. government (including when you applied for a visa), etc. If there are inconsistencies, you should explain those on the I-485 supplement page or in the cover letter. Also, make sure to keep a copy of all the forms and documents you submit to USCIS, so you will have those when you prepare for naturalization. If you do not have copies of your forms and documents, you can obtain them from the government through a Freedom of Information Act request.
A second challenge is the N-400, the naturalization form. This form also contains dozens of confusing questions, and the answers must be consistent with the answers you gave on your prior applications (forms I-589 and I-485). If not, you should explain the inconsistencies. During the naturalization process, USCIS looks closely at your entire history, and so issues that may have been overlooked during the I-485 process (where most people do not receive an interview) often come to light after the N-400 is filed.
One question that sometimes causes problems on the N-400 is whether you have ever given false or misleading information to the U.S. government. Say, for example, you listed your membership in a church on your I-589, but forgot to list that membership on the I-485. USCIS could–and I have seen this–accuse you of lying on the forms, since there is an inconsistency between the I-589 and the I-485, and you failed to mention this “misrepresentation” in response to the question on form N-400. The best way to avoid a problem is to be sure that all your forms are consistent, but if you do make a mistake, you can explain what happened and hopefully overcome the problem (in my experience, when you explain the inconsistencies, USCIS will generally approve the application).
Another challenge is the naturalization interview. Sometimes, asylees are asked about their asylum case during this interview. Of course, by the time you naturalize, many years may have passed since the events of your asylum case, and so you may not remember all the details. For this reason, it is a good idea to review your asylum case prior to the naturalization interview. Also, if you are asked a question and do not remember the answer, it is better to say that you do not know, rather than to guess and risk making an inconsistent statement. For the most part, officers rarely ask detailed questions about the old asylum case, but they could, and so you should prepare accordingly.
Finally, if the N-400 is approved, you will be scheduled for an oath ceremony and sworn in as a United States citizen. The whole affair is a long and often stressful process, but once the asylum case is approved, there is far less uncertainty and it is mainly a question of navigating the bureaucracy. If you keep copies of all your forms and documents, and you are careful that each application is consistent with prior applications, you should have little trouble moving through the process and–finally–becoming a U.S. citizen.
If you lose your case in Immigration Court, you can appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Conversely, if you win your case and the DHS attorney (the prosecutor) is unhappy with that outcome, DHS can appeal. Here, we’ll talk about what happens during an appeal to the BIA.
Once the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) makes a decision, the parties have 30 days to file an appeal to the BIA. The IJ should indicate on his decision when the appeal is due, meaning the appeal must be received by the BIA on or before the due date. Otherwise, the IJ’s decision is final and the case is over. Appeals are filed using Form EOIR-26. The fee is currently $110 (check to “United States Department of Justice”) or you can request a fee waiver.
The EOIR-26 is the notice of appeal. On the form, you must indicate the reason(s) why you are appealing. Here, you have to be specific, as indicated in the form instructions. If not, the BIA could dismiss your appeal on that basis alone. When I file an EOIR-26, I list the reasons for the appeal and I also note that we “reserve the right to raise additional arguments in our brief.” Next, you have to check a box indicating whether or not you want oral argument. The BIA rarely holds oral arguments (where the attorneys come before Board Members to discuss the case), and so whether you check yes or no probably doesn’t make much difference. But if you have a burning desire to present your case in person, check “yes” and maybe you’ll be invited to Falls Church for an oral argument. The EOIR-26 also requires you to indicate whether you will file a brief. A “brief” is a legal argument explaining why the IJ’s decision should be overturned. While you can file the brief and the Notice of Appeal together, it is more common to file the brief later on. Be aware that if you check “yes” to the brief, you will be required to file a brief, and if you fail to do so, your appeal will be dismissed.
BIA Board Members listen to a rare oral argument.
The EOIR-26 should be mailed to the BIA at the address specified in the instructions. Include with the appeal a copy of the IJ’s decision. If you have a lawyer, the lawyer should include an EOIR-27, appearance of counsel form. You have to send a copy of the entire packet to the DHS attorney’s office (the office of the “prosecutor” who litigated your case before the IJ). You can find their address here.
After the EOIR-26 is filed, you will receive a receipt. You are allowed to remain in the United States while the appeal is pending. You can also renew your Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”) while the appeal is pending.
If you indicated on the EOIR-26 that you plan to file a brief, the BIA will send a briefing schedule. How long it takes to get the briefing schedule is hard to predict. For a detained case, it may take a month or two, but for a non-detained case, it probably takes anywhere from six to 18 months. Along with the briefing schedule, you will receive a transcript of the Immigration Court case. This document contains all the discussions that took place at each appearance before the IJ. Depending on the case, it is usually very helpful to have the transcript, as oral statements made in court are often relevant to the argument you will make on appeal. For this reason, we do not submit a brief when we file the EOIR-26. We wait until we have the transcript and can then submit a more complete–and hopefully more convincing–argument.
Once the briefing schedule arrives, you have 21 days to file the brief (why they give so little time to write the brief, I do not know, but I complained about it here). You can ask for an additional 21 days, but you have to articulate a reason why you need more time.
The brief is the heart of the appeal. In it, you explain why the IJ erred and ask the BIA to overrule the court’s decision. You can see a sample brief here.
Some types of IJ decisions are easier to overturn than others. If the judge denied your case based on credibility (in other words, because the IJ thinks you lied), the BIA will only overturn the decision if it is clearly erroneous. On the other hand, if the IJ found you credible, but determined that you did not meet the legal standard for asylum, the BIA reviews the decision “de novo,” meaning that the Board will make its own decision and will not defer to the reasoning of the IJ. Put another way, the standard of review for factual errors is high and for legal errors is lower, and so in general, it is easier to win an appeal where you are arguing that the IJ made an error in interpreting the law rather than an error assessing credibility.
All that said, it is difficult to win any appeal at the BIA. That has always been the case, but the situation got worse in 2019, when the Trump Administration elevated six Immigration Judges known for their high denial rates to the Board. As a result, the Board is even more unlikely to overturn an IJ’s negative decision. Nevertheless, it can sometimes happen, and if you are not satisfied with the results in Immigration Court, you have the right to appeal.
After you file the brief, the wait time for a decision is unpredictable. Cases where the non-citizen is detained are faster–maybe another one to three months (on top of the time you already waited before the briefing schedule was issued). Non-detained cases are much slower, and can take anywhere from six months to a year or more.
Finally, you will receive a decision. Typically, either the BIA dismisses the appeal, meaning that the IJ’s decision stands, or remands the case back to the judge to remedy any errors and correct the decision (and hopefully grant relief, but this is not guaranteed and varies by case).
If you do not like the BIA’s decision, you can file a petition for review to the federal appeals court with jurisdiction over your case. Filing such a petition does not stop ICE from deporting you, though you can (and should) ask the federal court to issue an order “staying” (preventing) your removal while the federal appeal is pending. Such cases are usually difficult to win, and they are procedurally complicated. You can learn more about litigating an immigration case in federal court here. From the federal appeals court, the next–and final–step is the United State Supreme Court. Very few cases reach that level, and so usually if the BIA is not the end of the road, the federal appeals court is.
Unfortunately, the entire immigration system is legally complex, and that is particularly true of BIA cases, where legal arguments may not be apparent to a non-lawyer. If you have a case before the Board, your best bet is to find a decent lawyer to help you. You can learn more about the whole process in the BIA Practice Manual. You may also be interested in the BIA Pro Bono Project, which matches attorneys with BIA cases (usually for noncitizens who are detained). Finally, there is this website, which helps non-represented applicants find a pro bono (free) lawyer. Despite all the difficulties, it is still possible to win at the BIA, and if you are not satisfied with the IJ’s decision, you can appeal and seek a better result.
Let’s take a break from the doom and gloom associated with the President’s ongoing effort to subvert our democracy and look at something a bit more cheery–A new edition of the book My Trials: Inside America’s Deportation Factories by Paul Grussendorf. Judge Grussendorf’s 35-year career has spanned the gamut in the asylum law field: Immigration attorney, clinical professor, Immigration Judge, Supervisory Asylum Officer, Refugee Officer. His book, styled a “legal memoir,” discusses his time as an advocate and adjudicator and gives an insider’s perspective on our nation’s very dysfunctional immigration system.
While this book is generally targeted at people in the profession, law students, and policy-makers, it would also be useful for asylum seekers themselves. In many respects, Immigration Judges, DHS attorneys (the “prosecutors” in Immigration Court), and Asylum Officers are an inscrutable bunch. What are they thinking about when they interact with applicants and make decisions? How do they relate to each other? What are their outside interests? Judge Grussendorf’s book shines a light on the world behind the façade, and somehow, seeing government adjudicators as human beings is comforting.
That said, the overall picture painted by Judge Grussendorf ain’t pretty. He lays bare an immigration system that is a mess, where many prosecutors are unyielding and out of control, families are ripped apart for no logical reason (other than arbitrary laws that require it), politicians intervene to deny due process and treat immigrants as tools in a partisan game, and where training for judges and DHS attorneys is completely inadequate. The Judge has particular scorn for those DHS attorneys who do not know the law or care about “doing justice,” but who instead simply seek to deport anyone who comes into their crosshairs.
One aspect of the book that held particular interest for me was Judge Grussendorf’s discussions of cases he denied when he was on the bench. Such cases help illustrate how most deportations do nothing to make our country safer or better. Instead, they result in families being separated and good, hard-working people being ripped from their homes. Our harsh and unforgiving immigration laws often prevent judges–including well-meaning judges like the author–from granting relief even when that is clearly the better outcome. Other times, the applicant simply does not qualify for relief. In such cases, Judge Grussendorf did as most judges do: He denied the case and went on with his daily business. On reflection, it is striking that a judge can order someone deported in the afternoon and then go for a pleasant jog in the evening, but that’s the job, and good Immigration Judges can separate their job from their life.
The new edition of My Trials is timely, in that it has come out when Joe Biden is (hopefully) about to take office. While the Democratic Platform laid out a bold agenda, it is unclear whether a President Biden would be able (given Congressional resistance) or willing (given Mr. Biden’s more cautious nature) to pursue that agenda. Judge Grussendorf weighs in with a number of his own ideas for reform–some will require Congressional action; others will not.
A page from My Trials, chosen completely at random.
One of his proposals that I found interesting was the idea of granting Mexico some type of most favored nation status and essentially legalizing all Mexicans in the United States (except for those with criminal issues). Given that so many Mexican nationals are currently in the Immigration Court system, if this group were legalized, it would go a long way toward relieving the overburdened courts.
Judge Grussendorf also proposes removing asylum cases from the court system and delegating them to “Special Hearing Officers,” which are essentially better trained and better paid Asylum Officers. This would allow asylum cases to be adjudicated in a non-adversarial manner while freeing up the Immigration Courts to deal with other types of removal cases and eliminating the current redundant situation where the same asylum case is heard by both an Asylum Officer and an Immigration Judge.
A final proposal that I’ll mention here is the Judge’s idea to greatly reduce the use of pre-trial detention in immigration cases. This proposal is not unique to Judge Grussendorf. However, his real-world experience adds weight to arguments that the practice is dramatically over-used and illogical, and helps illustrate how devastating incarceration is for the non-citizen and the non-citizen’s family (and on the non-citizen’s ability to prepare for his Immigration Court hearing).
I hope that Judge Grussendorf’s book–and particularly his policy proposals–get some attention as we try to reform our immigration system. It seems like too often in this debate we hear from policy advocates and politicians, but not from people who have worked in the trenches. We need voices like Judge Grussendorf’s as we hopefully enter an era where immigration reform is a possibility.
My Trials sheds needed light on the absurd, cruel, dysfunctional, and unfair American asylum system. We are left with the impression that despite the systematic failures, justice in asylum cases is sometimes accomplished. When that happens, it is because individuals working within the system allow their humanity, decency, and respect for the rule of law to shine through and overcome the institutional barriers designed to prevent qualified applicants from receiving the protection they need and deserve. Judge Grussendorf is to be commended for his book, and for his effort to improve our nation’s asylum system.
Joe Biden has won the popular vote and the majority of the electoral college vote. Whether he will be sworn in as the 46th President of the United States, however, remains to be seen. In yet another break with precedent and an attack on our democracy, President Trump has refused to concede and claims that the election was plagued by widespread fraud. He made the same claim in 2016, and even created a commission, chaired by Vice President Mike Pence and anti-immigrant crusader Kris Kobach. That commission quietly shut down after failing to discover any significant evidence of fraud, and so far, there is no evidence of wrongdoing in the current election. Nevertheless, when we have a President who has repeatedly demonstrated his contempt for the rule of law and for reality itself, the peaceful transition of power in no longer a given.
And what’s worse than the President are those who support and enable him. We already know that many Republicans care more about winning than about democracy. Exhibit A in that regard is the Supreme Court nomination process. Senate Republicans blocked Merrick Garland from even receiving a hearing during the last year of President Obama’s term. The claim was that since an election was upcoming, “the people” should decide who gets to fill the vacant seat on the high court. Four years later, the same Senate Republicans rushed through the confirmation of a Justice they supported ideologically, Amy Coney Barrett, in the days before the 2020 election. This action laid bare the utter contempt Republicans have for fairness and for those who disagree with them. In my view, democracy simply cannot exist in such an atmosphere.
This election is like a bad horror movie. We’ve reached the point where the hero seems to have won, but there’s still 20 minutes left to go. Or in our case, 70 days.
Now, the stakes are even higher. Are Republicans just indulging their base and Mr. Trump? Or do they expect something to come of their challenges? And if the results of the election are somehow overturned or subverted, what then? I fear that democracy cannot survive such a moment.
And how does all this affect asylum seekers and immigrants? Even assuming the Trump Administration leaves peacefully, what can it do during the remaining 70-some days before Mr. Biden takes office? Can it make changes that outlast the Trump Presidency and are difficult for Mr. Biden to reverse?
One thing we are seeing is the continuing flurry of new regulations and other actions aimed at making it more difficult to obtain asylum or other legal status in the U.S. Probably the most significant recent action is the refugee cap for FY2021, which further reduces the number of refugees our country will admit for resettlement. For much of the Obama Administration, our country resettled about 85,000 refugees per year. During Mr. Obama’s last year in office, the U.S. resettled about 110,000 refugees. For FY2021 (which began on September 30, 2020), our country will resettle a maximum of 15,000 refugees–the lowest number in the modern history of our refugee program.
In another recent action, on November 5, the Attorney General issued a decision making clear that there is no “duress exception” to the persecutor bar. What this means is that if a person is forced to engage in “persecution” (for example, by serving as a prison guard) under duress, she cannot qualify for asylum. Also, the evidentiary burden for the government has been reduced so that if evidence exists indicating the persecutor bar “may” apply, the asylum applicant must demonstrate that the bar does not apply. Under this strange standard, many asylum applicants could be subject to the bar. Imagine a person who was forcefully conscripted into the Syrian army, an army which commits human rights violations. Even when there is no evidence that this person engaged in any persecutory conduct, he must present evidence that the persecutor bar does not apply. Whether this will block many people from obtaining asylum, I am not sure, but it could. At a minimum, the new decision will make it more burdensome for applicants to present their asylum claims.
The ongoing rule-making is part of a four-year effort to restrict asylum and immigration. Many policies have gone into effect; others have been blocked by courts or are subject to ongoing legal challenges. For example, the Trump Administration increased the wait time for asylum-pending work permits from 150 days to one year, it implemented the “public charge rule” making it more difficult to obtain a Green Card, it narrowed the basis for obtaining asylum for victims of domestic violence and gang violence, it created the Migrant Protection Protocols, which forced thousands of asylum seekers to wait in Mexico in unsafe conditions, it issued restrictions on asylum for people who passed through third countries or countries affected by the coronavirus, it implemented the Muslim travel ban, etc., etc. Whether any more new rules or decisions will be issued in the next few months, we do not know, but it certainly would not be surprising.
One thing the Trump Administration has failed to do is change the immigration law itself. That requires an act of Congress, and even though Republicans controlled both Houses in 2017 and 2018, the President failed to introduce legislation related to immigration or asylum. As a result, all of the changes we’ve seen over the past four years have been regulatory. This means that a new President would have the power to reverse those changes, though those efforts could be blocked by a court if they are found to be “arbitrary and capricious” (as the Trump Administration repeatedly found out).
President Elect Biden has laid out an ambitious immigration agenda and has pledged to reverse many of Mr. Trump’s immigration rules. However, given that the Senate will likely remain in Republican hands, some of his ideas may prove impossible to implement. Others may come up against hard political realities–I wonder, for example, what to do about the thousands of migrants stranded at the U.S./Mexico border. Something needs to be done, but throwing open the gates seems politically risky and could result in a severe backlash (in the 2022 election, for example). It would be far better to come up with bipartisan solutions to these problems, but unfortunately, it seems unlikely that the GOP will play ball.
In any event, Mr. Biden can accomplish nothing until he is sworn in, and as far as I can tell, that is not yet a certainty. I know I tend to be pessimistic, and I hope that I am wrong, but from what I can tell, our country is at the most precarious and dangerous point that we have seen since the Civil War. To get past this moment, our leaders need to put the good of the nation before their own self interest and their own partisan loyalties. I suppose there is a first time for everything.
As I write, we still have no decision, and the election rests on the edge of knife. Perhaps Joe Biden will manage to pull out a win, but I am personally feeling deeply pessimistic. Once again Donald Trump has proved the pollsters wrong and he and his fellow Republicans have exceeded expectations. There will be time later to ask “What Happened?” (as Hillary Clinton did after the 2016 election), but here I want to reflect on a few more personal notes.
First, for me at least, yesterday was not all bad. My intrepid associate and I were in Immigration Court representing a gay man from Russia. His case was pretty typical: He suffered many threats (in person and spray painted on his door), he was beaten up a few times (once ending up in the hospital for three days), ostracized by his schoolmates, mentally and physically abused by his parents. You know, the usual for a gay person in Russia. He also happens to be a popular blogger, with some of his posts garnering close to one million views, but this work was done anonymously and so was not something we could hang our hat on. After testimony, DHS opposed asylum. The Immigration Judge explained his reasoning and why he felt that the harm suffered rose to the level of persecution. He also explained why country condition evidence convinced him that there was a likelihood of future harm. After he explained himself, the DHS attorney agreed not to appeal and our client walked out of court as an asylee.
They still believe.
Having done enough of these cases, I can tell a strong case from a weak one, and this case was fairly strong, and so I believe the outcome was correct under existing law and precedent. But there is more here than that. The Immigration Judge listened to our client, and so did DHS. They were polite and professional. They were respectful. The DHS attorney challenged my client on certain portions of his story. That is her job and she did it courteously but firmly. In short, the system worked for my client because the IJ and the DHS attorney respect the rule of law and believe in due process. When I have a case with this judge and with this government attorney, I know that even if my client loses (which we sometimes do), we will have been heard and treated fairly. This is Justice. And though our immigration system is under daily assault, Justice can sometimes still be found almost four years into the Trump Presidency.
Second, as I was perusing Facebook during my copious free time, I noticed a photo posted by a former asylum client, now a U.S. citizen. He was voting. Then I saw another, and another.
Once a person wins asylum, she must wait one year before applying for a Green Card. Once she applies, it used to take about a year to get the approval. Lately, that wait time has increased to over three years. Once the asylee gets a Green Card, she must wait four years to file for citizenship. The citizenship application typically takes another year or two. Finally, the former asylee becomes a United States citizen. So from asylum grant to U.S. citizenship can take anywhere from six to eight years, or more (and remember, before that, most people waited a few years to get asylum, so the total journey can easily be 10 or 12 years).
I have been in the business long enough that a number of my asylum clients are now citizens. Since my Facebook skills are such that I do not know how to block them from becoming my “friends” (I’m thinking of you, Ali), I get to see what they are up to here in the States.
The voters I saw were a woman’s rights activist who created an organization to educate hundreds of young women and girls in Afghanistan. She was threatened by the Taliban and forced to flee to the United States. There were veterans of the Green Revolution in Iran–activists who stood up to that vicious regime in an effort to move their country towards democracy. There was a democracy activist from Egypt and a journalist from Pakistan. There were family members of a diplomat who was assassinated in his country.
Most of these new citizens continue to engage in political activity to support democracy and human rights in their homelands. All are working productively in the United States.
Whatever the results of the election, and whatever the opinion of my fellow Americans about asylum seekers and refugees, I know the truth because I see it with my own eyes every day. Asylum seekers, refugees, and immigrants are some of the most patriotic people I know. They contribute mightily to our nation. And despite all its flaws, they still believe in America, and in the American dream. Their goodness and their faith help me to try to believe as well.
Next week is the election (in case you haven’t heard) and hopefully soon after, we will have a result. Whether the victor is Joe Biden or Donald Trump, immigration advocates have their work cut out for them.
If Mr. Trump wins a second term, it won’t be because he won the popular vote. It’s clear that more Americans will vote for his opponent (as they did in 2016). However, our system awards electoral votes by state, and states with lower populations–which tend to be more conservative–receive disproportionate representation. Perhaps there is some wisdom to this system, which disfavors change, since change is difficult and divisive, especially for those who already have power. Or maybe we would be better off with a system that is more responsive to the will of a simple majority. I am really not sure. In any event, as the President says, it is what it is.
So in terms of immigration, how would a second term look for President Trump? Since early 2017, the Trump Administration has been using its rule-making authority to restrict immigration in a variety of ways. This effort swung into high gear with the advent of the pandemic, and over the past eight months we’ve seen a barrage of changes, many of which make life more difficult for asylum seekers and immigrants. One thing we have not seen from President Trump is an effort to change the law, even when the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress (and remember, to change the law, Congress needs to pass a bill and the President has to sign it). Because the law has not changed, President Trump has had to work within the existing law to make regulatory and policy changes. When those changes have gone beyond the bounds of the law, courts have blocked them.
“Please vote as if my life depends on it.”
Assuming President Trump wins re-election and Republicans do not control both chambers of Congress (and it is very doubtful that Republicans will take the House), it is unlikely that we would see any positive immigration reform. Mr. Trump has periodically made noise about helping the Dreamers (people brought to the U.S. as children who do not have lawful permanent status here), and so perhaps we could see some bipartisan legislation to regularize their status. Also, there are some other possible areas of cooperation on immigration (temporary seasonal workers and Christian refugees, for example), but those are quite limited.
More likely, if Mr. Trump is granted a second term, we will see more of what we saw during the first term: Travel bans, reduction of due process protections, a weaponized bureaucracy designed to make it more difficult and expensive to obtain legal status in the U.S., regulatory changes that restrict eligibility for asylum and immigration, increased enforcement by ICE, punitive strategies to deter and harm asylum seekers at the border, etc. During the President’s first term, some (but not all) of his worst attacks were mitigated by the courts–mostly the lower courts, as the Supreme Court was more deferential to the President’s authority. Now, with the confirmation of a new conservative Justice on the Supreme Court, a second Trump Administration may be even less constrained in how it (mis)treats immigrants. All this will make it more difficult for non-citizens to receive the due process and the immigration benefits to which they are entitled under law, and the protection that many need to simply survive.
Finally, and it is no small matter, if Mr. Trump is returned to office, we can expect more lies about who immigrants and asylum seekers are, and about what they do when they get here. Demonizing non-citizens, minorities, and Muslims is an essential part of President Trump’s strategy and very unfortunately, his narrative has resonated with a significant portion of the electorate. Aside from fighting the Trump Administration’s policies in court, we also have to work to undermine the false narrative that he has been pushing.
In short, I expect that if President Trump is re-elected, we will see most of his restrictive policy changes pass judicial muster and his hateful and false rhetoric continue. All this will make for a difficult and painful situation for non-citizens and many others in our country.
If Joe Biden is elected, there is little doubt that the fate of asylum seekers and immigrants will be better: We can expect an end to the attacks on due process and rule of law, and to the bombardment of lies that we have come to expect about non-citizens. Mr. Biden has promised a number of positive changes, not least of which is to roll back many of President Trump’s abusive policies. Nevertheless, even under a Biden Administration, there will be much work to do.
For one thing, while Democrats will likely hold the House, it is quite likely that they will not control the Senate, meaning that any new legislation will have to be bipartisan. On its face, this should be a good thing–the broader the consensus on a new law, the better. However, if a Republican Senate behaves as it did during the Obama Administration, we can look forward to prolonged gridlock on immigration reform (and everything else). Even in a Democratic Senate, it may not be easy to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which has eluded us for decades. Advocates will have to push for legislation with our representatives and with the public.
In addition, it’s clear that more work needs to be done to educate the public about asylum seekers and immigrants. Though advocacy groups do significant outreach, the message hasn’t landed with many people. Advocates need to think more about how to communicate effectively with those who oppose immigration–how to reach them and how to engage with them.
For me, the choice on November 3rd is obvious. Joe Biden isn’t perfect, but he will restore due process and the rule of law to our immigration system. He will also be more honest about asylum seekers and immigrants. In addition, if he charts a moderate and common-sense course on immigration (and other issues), he might help diffuse some of the divisiveness that has grown to dangerous levels in our country. I hope that Mr. Biden is successful and that we see Democrats in charge of both Houses of Congress. But win or lose, immigration advocates will have work to do.
In the ongoing saga of the Trump Administration’s efforts to dismantle our humanitarian immigration law, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security published a new rule imposing mandatory bars that prevent “convicted felons, drunk drivers, gang members, and other criminal aliens from receiving asylum.” The Trump Administration has not changed the law related to asylum–that would take an act of Congress signed by the President–and even when they controlled the Senate and the House in 2017 and 2018, Republicans did not attempt to modify the law. Instead, the Administration has been attacking asylum through regulatory and bureaucratic changes, many of which have been challenged in court.
This latest change is designed to block certain convicted and suspected criminals from receiving asylum. What’s wrong with that? Why should we grant refuge to criminals? I must admit that in the abstract, I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for asylum seekers with criminal records. They are asking for an immigration benefit after having violated our country’s law. However, when you actually meet non-citizens with criminal records and understand their circumstances, it is often more difficult to hold this view. Nevertheless, I suppose this new rule will be less controversial than others implemented by the Trump Administration, since it targets (supposed) criminals.
Before President Trump saved us, we were being overrun by criminals.
That said, there are a number of reasons why this new rule is bad. First, the Immigration and Nationality Act already bars asylum for many people with criminal convictions (and some who have been accused but not convicted). Those who are not barred under the old rules can still be denied asylum as a matter of discretion on a case-by-case basis, and few people with anything resembling a serious criminal conviction get asylum. So as usual with the Trump Administration’s rule making, this new regulation is a solution in search of a problem.
Second, some asylum seekers will be barred for committing a domestic violence offense even without a conviction. For cases in family court, it is sometimes necessary to admit guilt and enter a rehabilitation program in order to (for example) regain custody of your children. I worked on such cases early in my career, and I observed that people who adamantly claimed innocence would be forced to admit guilt if they wanted to reunite with their family. This is of particular concern for low income individuals, who are more likely to face government intervention in their lives. And so relaxing the rules about convictions will probably result in innocent people being barred from asylum.
Third, and on a related note, this new rule will have unintended “up stream” consequences for non-citizens in criminal or domestic court. They will now have a stronger incentive to fight their case and try to avoid any adjudication of guilt. This could result in people with minor issues (such as a second DUI or a minor domestic violence incident) failing to get the help they need, since obtaining assistance requires an admission of culpability. Thus, it will be more difficult to reach a good outcome in cases that would normally be amenable to positive government intervention.
Fourth, some of the criminal conduct targeted by the new rule is very minor–for example, the misdemeanor use of a false ID. Some asylum seekers use fake documents to flee persecution and enter the U.S. Others use fake IDs to work (and eat). Blocking such people from asylum is an unfairly harsh consequence for a relatively small infraction.
Finally, the new rule bars certain people from asylum if they are convicted of illegally re-entering the U.S. or for alien smuggling (and alien smuggling can be interpreted very broadly–for example, a person who enters the U.S. illegally and who helps a non-relative enter at the same time could be convicted of alien smuggling). Thus, the rule potentially prevents people from seeking asylum for fleeing persecution and coming to the United States.
Let’s turn to the new rule itself. One important point is that this rule is not retroactive. Meaning that if you have an old conviction, it does not bar you from asylum. However, if you are convicted after the rule goes into effect–November 20, 2020, unless blocked by a court–then you would be barred. So if you are arrested for a crime prior to November 20, 2020, but convicted on or after that date, you are barred from asylum. The new bars apply to aliens who are convicted of–
(1) A felony under federal or state law;
(2) An offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A) or § 1324(a)(1)(2) (Alien Smuggling or Harboring);
(3) An offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (Illegal Reentry);
(4) A federal, state, tribal, or local crime involving criminal street gang activity;
(5) Certain federal, state, tribal, or local offenses concerning the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant if the impaired driving caused serious injury or death, or if the offense was a second or subsequent DUI offense;
(6) A federal, state, tribal, or local domestic violence offense, or who are found by an adjudicator to have engaged in acts of battery or extreme cruelty in a domestic context, even if no conviction resulted; and
(7) Certain misdemeanors under federal or state law for offenses related to false identification; the unlawful receipt of public benefits from a federal, state, tribal, or local entity; or the possession or trafficking of a controlled substance or controlled-substance paraphernalia.
The new rule also makes it more difficult to modify or overturn a prior conviction in order to mitigate the immigration consequences of a crime. The rule specifically indicates that convictions altered for immigration purposes do not allow the applicant to avoid any bars to asylum. It has never been easy to reopen a criminal case and change a conviction, but some non-citizens have successfully used that approach to avoid the immigration consequences of their crimes. Under the new rule, that practice–already quite limited–will become nearly impossible.
The point to take from all this is pretty simple: If you are an asylum seeker, do not commit any crimes. The repercussions for even a small infraction can be severe. If you are arrested and charged with a crime (no matter how minor), or if you have a case in domestic or family court, you need to speak with a lawyer who is familiar with the immigration consequences of the charges against you.
To me, this new rule is redundant and unnecessary. Asylum seekers are often people who have had traumatic experiences, and sometimes those experience manifest in conduct that gets them into trouble. The old rule–which blocked most criminals but allowed for case-by-case adjudication in certain instances–was more fair, and enabled the fact-finder to consider all the relevant circumstances in an asylum applicant’s case. But when it comes to asylum seekers, the Trump Administration is not interested in fairness. Perhaps the courts will see fit to block this new rule, but to me, that seems doubtful. The vast majority of asylum seekers do not commit crimes, and under this new rule, it is imperative for anyone who needs asylum to keep it that way.
In order to win an asylum case, you have to prove that there is a reasonably possibility you will face harm in your home country. To do this, you need evidence. Evidence about any past harm, evidence of threats against you, evidence of country conditions, etc. One piece of evidence that can be helpful is a report from an expert witness. Here, we’ll discuss the different types of expert reports and how they can help your case.
First, let’s briefly examine the difference between a fact witness and an expert witness. A fact witness is someone who knows about some aspect of your case. For example, maybe your cousin saw the police arrest you from a political rally. Your cousin knows about one piece of your story, and she can write a letter explaining what she knows. She is a fact witness. An expert witness usually does not have any first-hand knowledge of your case. Rather, according to the Federal Rules of Evidence, an expert is someone with “with scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge” who can “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” For example, if you are a member of a small ethnic group that is persecuted by your home government, you might find a professor who has studied your group and who can write a report explaining how the government treats members of your ethnic group. The professor is an expert witness.
In terms of admitting expert testimony, the Federal Rules of Evidence are not binding in Immigration Court or at the Asylum Office, but they do provide useful guidance. To be admissible under the Federal Rules, expert testimony must meet three criteria: (1) It must be relevant, meaning it will “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;” (2) The expert witness must be “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education;” and (3) The expert’s testimony must be reliable, in that it “is based upon sufficient facts or data… is the product of reliable principles and methods, and [the expert] witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.” The standard for admitting evidence in immigration proceedings is more liberal: The “sole test for admission of evidence is whether the evidence is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair.” Nevertheless, by following the guidance from the Federal Rules, you can help ensure that any expert testimony is given maximum credence by the fact finder.
The standard uniform for an expert witness.
Expert testimony is usually submitted in writing, in the form of an expert report. Accompanying the report is the expert’s CV or a statement of qualifications. It is also helpful to list instances where the expert has previously been recognized as an expert witness by other courts. Experts witnesses sometimes come to court to testify (or testify by telephone).
Expert testimony can be used to support different aspects of an asylum claim. Probably the most common expert report we use is a forensic medical or dental exam. In these reports, the doctor or dentist examines an asylum applicant’s injury to determine whether that injury is consistent with the applicant’s description of what happened. For example, we once had a client who was stabbed in the arm by members of the Taliban. He had a large scar running the length of his forearm. Of course, no medical expert can determine whether the injury was caused by the Taliban. But the expert can opine about whether the scar is consistent with a knife wound. Some experts can also discuss the approximate age of a scar based on its appearance. To create a report, the client would normally need to appear for an in-person examination and give a written description of the incident to the doctor. For this reason, we try to complete the client’s affidavit (or at least the relevant portion of the affidavit) before he goes to see the doctor. That way, he has a description of the incident to bring with him to the exam.
A subset of the forensic medical exams is an evaluation of female genital mutilation/cutting (“FGM/C”). Victims of FGM/C are often able to obtain asylum, and such exams are crucial to these cases. The World Health Organization has categorized FGM/C, and it is helpful for the doctor to explain what category the client’s FGM/C fits into.
Another common type of report that we see are mental health evaluations. These are created by psychologists or other mental health professionals to evaluate the psychological harm (such as post traumatic stress disorder) caused by persecution or the threat of persecution. Sometimes, these reports are generated during the course of treatment; other times, the client visits the mental health professional one or two times and obtains an evaluation for purposes of the asylum case. I tend to prefer the reports created by a treating professional, but in many cases, asylum applicants do not have access to health insurance and cannot afford treatment. In such cases, it may be possible to obtain a pro bono evaluation, which the client can use to bolster her asylum claim. We also use these reports to try to expedite asylum cases. For example, if the report indicates that the applicant’s mental health is being harmed by the long wait, we can sometimes convince the Asylum Office or the court to expedite the person’s case.
Country condition experts can also assist with asylum cases. In my own practice, I use such experts only rarely, as most of the information we need can be found on-line in human rights reports or news articles. However, in specialized situations, a country condition expert can be critical. For instance, an expert can help establish that a person belongs to a particular social group by showing that the society in question recognizes that social group as a distinct entity. Another example is where an expert is needed to interpret a foreign law, such as whether an adoption is legally valid.
In short, there are many ways that experts can help bolster an asylum case. A good starting point for identifying experts and utilizing them effectively is the asylum expert handbook created by Professor Deborah M. Weissman and her students at UNC Chapel Hill Law School. Other helpful resources include the expert data base at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at UC Hastings Law School and the country condition expert list from the Rights in Exile Programme. Some experts on these lists work pro bono; others charge a fee.
Not all asylum cases need testimony from an expert witness (indeed, most of my own cases do not), but where it is needed, it can make the difference between a denial and a grant.
In order to “amplify” the President’s tough-on-immigrants campaign message and win votes, the Trump Administration is planning on conducting a series of ICE raids in “sanctuary” jurisdictions, such as California, Denver, and Philadelphia. What should you do if ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) comes looking for you? Or if you get caught up in a raid?
Before we answer those questions, I want to note that people who have pending asylum cases, or who have cases in Immigration Court, are rarely targeted for arrest by ICE. The agency’s main targets are people who already have removal orders and people who have criminal issues (including very minor criminal issues). However, ICE also makes “collateral” arrests if they encounter other “illegals” in the course of pursuing their target. But unless you have already been ordered removed or you have criminal issues, it is unlikely that you will ever have to deal with ICE. That said, it never hurts to take precautions and to be prepared. So how do you do that?
In the old days, politicians would win votes by kissing babies.
First, a couple general rules to keep in mind. If you are stopped by ICE or the police, do not run away or resist. Keep your hands where the officers can see them. Be aware that in some states, you are required to give your name to law enforcement. Do not lie about your immigration status or present false documents. Trying to lie your way out of a situation rarely works, and is more likely to cause additional problems. The better approach is to inform the officers that you wish to remain silent and that you wish to contact a lawyer and/or your family. As you probably know, in the U.S., you have the right to remain silent, and anything you say to ICE or the police can be used against you in court. So the less you say, the better.
If the officers want to search you, you have a right to say no. However, if the officers have probable cause (for example, they suspect that you committed a crime and are carrying a weapon), they can search you. If ICE or the police want to search you, you can repeat that you do not consent to the search, but do not resist.
Non-citizen in the U.S. are required to carry proof of immigration status at all times (Green Card, work permit, asylum receipt, passport and visa, etc.). 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. You also have a right to call your country’s consulate in the U.S. (though for asylum seekers who fear harm from the home government, this may not be a great idea). You might also scan your immigration papers or take pictures of them, and keep them on your phone or in your email. That way, even if you do not have the originals, you can at least produce copies. In addition, non-citizens in the U.S. illegally (and who do not have an application pending) can be subject to expedited removal if they have been in the U.S. for less than two years. So make sure to carry proof (or have it on your phone or in your email) that you have been in the country for more than two years. If you have been in the U.S. for less than two years, do not admit that. Stay silent and ask to speak to a lawyer.
One common way people get detained is during a traffic stop. If you are stopped for a traffic violation, the police officer can require you to produce your driver’s license, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration. Once the police have your information, they often check for outstanding arrest warrants. In some jurisdictions, they also check for immigration warrants and can detain people with outstanding criminal or immigration issues.
Today, politicians win votes by putting babies in jail.
It is less common for ICE to come to your home, but if that happens, you do not have to let them into your house unless they have a warrant signed by a judge. You can ask to see the officers’ ID and any warrant. Also, be aware that sometimes ICE officers will try to trick you into leaving your house or allowing them to enter. If ICE officers or the police force their way into your house, do not resist. Tell them that you do not consent to them entering your home, and that you wish to remain silent and contact a lawyer.
While it is probably unlikely that you will ever be detained by ICE, it is a good idea to have a plan in place just in case. What will you do about your children or other people that you take care of? Who will assist them? If you take medicine, make sure that someone can get it for you (including a copy of the prescription). What about bank accounts, vehicles, and property? You need to have someone to take care of your affairs in the event that you are detained, and that person needs to know what to do in case of an emergency.
In addition, keep your immigration and other legal papers somewhere where your family or friends can access them. Also, make sure your family members know or can find your Alien number. If you have a lawyer, your family members should have that lawyer’s contact information.
You can find more information (in many different languages) about encounters with ICE and the police at the ACLU “Know Your Rights” webpage.
Finally, if you are detained, you may be eligible for release on your own recognizance (meaning you are released and required to report back to ICE or an Immigration Court at some point in the future) or on a bond (meaning you pay money as a “guarantee” that you will appear for any future court date or for removal from the country). If ICE refuses to release you or set a bond, you can ask an Immigration Judge to do that. Depending on the circumstances, judges sometimes do not have the authority to release you. But in my experience, asylum seekers are almost always released unless they have criminal issues.
In short, while it is not impossible that a person with a pending asylum case will be detained by ICE, it is rare. Nevertheless, it’s a wise idea to have a plan in place and to be aware of your rights. That way, you will be ready for any eventuality.
Last week, USCIS announced a new rule for interpreters at Asylum Office interviews. Starting immediately, most asylum applicants should not bring their own interpreter to the interview, as had been the practice up until now. Instead, USCIS will provide an interpreter by telephone for most languages. The reason for the change is, of course, the coronavirus pandemic. This new rule will be in effect until at least March 22, 2021.
There are a few interesting tidbits contained in the rule’s preface, and here, I want to discuss those, as well as the effect of the new rule, plus some tips on working with telephonic interpreters.
One tidbit is statistical. To justify the new rule, USCIS cites some numbers indicating how serious the pandemic is. As of July 31, 2020, “there were approximately 17,106,007 cases of COVID-19 globally, resulting in approximately 668,910 deaths; approximately 4,405,932 cases have been identified in the United States, with new cases being reported daily, and approximately 150,283 reported deaths due to the disease.” This grim assessment by the U.S. government itself seems largely at odds with the picture painted by President Trump, who has pretty consistently underplayed the severity of the pandemic (at least in public, if not to Bob Woodward).
When using a telephonic interpreter, be sure to speak loudly into the phone.
Another interesting tidbit relates to the affirmative asylum backlog. Since the advent of the Trump Administration, the Asylum Office has become more tight lipped about its data, and so we receive fewer updates about the backlog (or anything else). But according to the new rule, as of “July 31, 2020, USCIS had 370,948 asylum applications, on behalf of 589,187 aliens, pending final adjudication.” “Over 94% of these pending applications are awaiting an interview by an asylum officer.” This means that as of July 31, the current affirmative asylum backlog was about 348,691 cases (meaning 348,691 cases were filed but not yet interviewed). Contrast this with the last time USCIS posted statistical information about asylum cases, which was for the period ending on September 30, 2019. At that time, the backlog stood at 339,836 cases. If all this data is correct (and I am never completely confident in the information we receive from USCIS these days), the backlog has grown by about 9,000 cases between October 1, 2019 and July 31, 2020.
If we believe these numbers, this means that the backlog grew faster in FY2019 than it did in FY2020. This may or may not be surprising, depending on your perspective. On the one hand, given that so few cases are being interviewed this year thanks to the pandemic, we might have expected the backlog to have grown more quickly. On the other hand, given that fewer asylum seekers are making it to the U.S., we might have expected the backlog to grow more slowly.
Finally, with regard to statistics, USCIS’s numbers indicate that 22,257 cases have been interviewed and are awaiting a decision. This seems like a lot to me, especially since Asylum Officers are interviewing fewer people because of the pandemic, and you’d think they’d have more time to finish cases that have already been interviewed.
Turning to the new rule itself, basically it means that when you go to an asylum interview, the government will provide you with a contract interpreter, who will attend the interview by phone. According to the new rule, “contract interpreters are carefully vetted and tested [and they] pass rigorous background checks as well as meet a high standard of competency.” In my experience, the contract interpreters are quite good, and I have never had a case where an interpreter caused a major problem. Prior to the new rule (and the coronavirus), applicants were required to bring their own interpreter, who assisted in person, while the contract interpreter monitored the interview by phone. Now, you are not allowed to bring your own interpreter, and you must use the telephonic interpreter.
Not all languages are covered by the new rule, but many are. USCIS contract interpreters are available for 47 languages. If your language is not on the list, you must bring your own interpreter.
If a contract interpreter is not available, the interview will be rescheduled and the delay will be attributed to USCIS for Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”) purposes (meaning that the Asylum Clock will not stop). On the flip side, if the applicant refuses to proceed with a USCIS contract interpreter, the Clock will stop, which will delay the EAD.
The new rule raises a few concerns. Probably the primary concern is whether asylum applicants will be comfortable with their interpreters. Will a woman who has been the victim of gender-based violence be comfortable if her interpreter is a man? I have heard anecdotally (and I believe it) that Asylum Officers are sensitive to this issue, and will check with the applicant before starting the interview. Also, if you prefer a male or female interpreter, you might ask in advance by emailing the Asylum Office before your interview. My sense is that the Asylum Office will do its best to accommodate such requests.
Another concern is that telephonic interpreters cannot as easily understand the applicant (or the Asylum Officer) and may not be able to convey emotion or nuance as well as they might if they were present in person. While I suspect that this is true, I think it is unlikely that missing such subtleties will make a difference in the outcome. Also, given the pandemic and the need for social distancing, it seems to me that we all need to make some adjustments.
All that said, how can you best work with a telephonic interpreter? Here are a few tips from a star interpreter, who has herself performed telephonic interpretations–
Keep your voice loud and clear. While this is important when working with on-site interpreters, it is even more important over the phone.
If you have a long statement, pause after a sentence or two so the interpreter can translate your words. After the interpreter is done, continue your response.
Don’t shuffle papers as you speak; you might as well stop talking because the interpreter will not be able to hear you.
Try not to talk over other people. The interpreter can only translate for one person at a time. Over the phone, it will be impossible for the interpreter to understand what is being said if people talk over each other. This could result in a statement by the applicant going unheard by the Asylum Officer–with potentially disastrous consequences.
Wait for the interpreter to finish interpreting before making another statement or asking a question.
If you don’t hear or can’t understand the interpreter, speak up!
All good advice to keep in mind at your interview.
Overall, my sense is that this new rule is reasonable and will hopefully allow more applicants to start attending interviews, while keeping everyone as safe as possible.
Tip o’ the fedora to Professor Lindsay M. Harris, Director of the Immigration & Human Rights Clinic at the University of the District of Columbia, and interpreter extraordinaire Maria Raquel McFadden, for their contributions to this article.
These days, it takes approximately forever to complete an asylum case. Because of the long wait, the law allows asylum seekers to apply for an Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”), which lets them work lawfully while the case is pending. In one of its many regulatory attacks on the asylum system, the Trump Administration recently implemented new rules making it more difficult to get an EAD. But those rules have been challenged in court. Let’s take a look at the law, the old rules, the new rules, where things stand now, and–most importantly–how asylum seekers might still qualify for an EAD.
As usual, it’s best to start with the law. In this case,INA § 208(d)(2), which provides–
An applicant for asylum is not entitled to employment authorization, but such authorization may be provided under regulation by the Attorney General. An applicant who is not otherwise eligible for employment authorization shall not be granted such authorization prior to 180 days after the date of filing of the application for asylum.
What this gobbledygook means is that asylum applicants are not entitled to an EAD, but government agencies can make rules allowing asylum seekers to get EADs. However, the soonest an asylum seeker can obtain an EAD is 180 days after he files for asylum.
Introducing the new EAD application process.
Based on this law, a government agency (the U.S. Department of Justice) created regulations that allowed asylum seekers to apply for an EAD 150 days after their asylum application was filed. Why 150 and not 180? Because the DOJ figured (optimistically) that it would take at least 30 days to process the EAD application, and so if the applicant files after 150 days, the EAD would not be issued until at least 180 days had passed. The regulations also provide that any delay caused by the applicant “shall not be counted” towards the 180 days. This is the origin of the dreaded Asylum Clock, which tracks how much time has passed since an applicant filed for asylum (and which has a tendency to behave in arbitrary ways, much to the chagrin of asylum seekers and their attorneys). So if an asylum applicant causes a delay–by rescheduling her interview, for example–the Clock would stop until the period of delay ends (in this example, the period of delay would end when the applicant attends her interview). These rules have remained largely unchanged for the past 25 years, until August 25, 2020, when new regulations went into effect.
The new rules make a number of major changes to the way EADs are processed for people seeking asylum. The most important of these rules are–
The waiting period to apply for an initial EAD based on asylum pending is extended from 150 days to 365 days. In other words, instead of waiting five months to apply for an EAD, asylum seekers now have to wait one year before applying for an EAD. This rule applies to asylum seekers who file for an initial (first time) EAD on or after August 25, 2020 (regardless of when they filed for asylum).
EADs will be denied for anyone who filed for asylum more than one year after arriving in the United States, unless an Immigration Judge or Asylum Officer determines that the applicant meets an exception to the one-year asylum-filing deadline. Such a determination cannot be made until the applicant attends an asylum interview or an Individual Hearing in Immigration Court, and so this effectively means that people who file for asylum after one year in the U.S. will not get an EAD while their case is pending. This rule applies to people who file for asylum on or after August 25, 2020.
Asylum applicants who entered the country “unlawfully” are ineligible for an EAD.
USCIS’s authority to deny EADs as a matter of discretion is expanded.
Asylum seekers have not capitulated to these changes, and there is currently at least one lawsuit challenging their validity. As of this writing, the judge in that case issued a preliminary injunction blocking the most onerous of the new rules, but only for asylum applicants who are members of two organizations involved in the lawsuit: Casa de Maryland and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project. This is a preliminary ruling based on the judge’s initial evaluation that many of the new rules are illegal; it is not a final decision one way or the other.
The bad news here is that the judge’s preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the new rules applies only to members of Casa and ASAP. The good news is that it does not apply only to current members of these organizations. This means that for people who are ineligible for an EAD under the new rules, you can join one of the organizations and potentially become eligible for an EAD based on the preliminary injunction. Thus, asylum seekers who are (or who become) members of these organizations are eligible to apply for an EAD after 150 days (as opposed to 365 days). Also, asylum seeker/members who filed for asylum after August 25, 2020, and who were in the U.S. for more than one year before filing for asylum, are still eligible for an EAD. You can learn more about the effect of the judge’s injunction here. You can join ASAP here, and Casa de Maryland here (you only have to be a member of one of these organization to qualify for protection under the preliminary injunction).
The other piece of good news from the injunction is that it may signal the judge’s intent to issue a favorable decision on the merits of the case, and to permanently block the new rules for all asylum seekers. When the judge will decide the merits of the case, we do not yet know.
Another unknown is the exact procedure by which members of Casa and ASAP can obtain an EAD. I reached out to an organization involved in the lawsuit, and it seems that the logistics of the process are still being worked out. In the mean time, if you think you would benefit from becoming a member of one of the organizations, you can join, so at least that piece will be in place when it comes time to apply for an EAD (and also, these are great organizations, so there are many good reasons to join).
One final note, for those seeking initial EADs or renewing expiring EADs, keep in mind that fees are going up on October 2, 2020, and that USCIS keeps revising the I-765 form. Make sure to check the website and file the correct edition of the form, and the correct fee (or fee waiver).
The Trump Administration is working overtime to make it difficult for asylum seekers to obtain status in the U.S. But thanks to asylum-rights advocates, it is often still possible to win asylum and to obtain an EAD while your case is pending.
A whistleblower named Brian Murphy recently got attention for his claim that DHS officials ordered him to stop investigating Russian interference in the 2020 election. Until he was demoted a few months ago, Mr. Murphy ran the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis (“DHS I&A”).
In the same complaint, Mr. Murphy also alleges that Acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli ordered him to alter intelligence reports to downplay violence and corruption in Central America. These reports are used to evaluate asylum claims and by downplaying the violence, it would be more difficult for asylum seekers to win their cases. From page 9 of the complaint–
In December 2019, Mr. Murphy attended a meeting with Messrs. Cuccinelli and Glawe to discuss intelligence reports regarding conditions in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. The intelligence reports were designed to help asylum officers render better determinations regarding their legal standards. Mr. Murphy’s team at DHS I&A completed the intelligence reports and he presented them to Mr. Cuccinelli in the meeting. Mr. Murphy defended the work in the reports, but Mr. Cuccinelli stated he wanted changes to the information outlining high levels of corruption, violence, and poor economic conditions in the three respective countries. Mr. Cuccinelli expressed frustration with the intelligence reports, and he accused unknown “deep state intelligence analysts” of compiling the intelligence information to undermine President Donald J. Trump’s (“President Trump”) policy objectives with respect to asylum. Notwithstanding Mr. Murphy’s response that the intelligence reports’ assessments were consistent with past assessments made for several years, Mr. Cuccinelli ordered Messrs. Murphy and Glawe to identify the names of the “deep state” individuals who compiled the intelligence reports and to either fire or reassign them immediately.
Mr. Murphy refused to comply with this order, which he deemed illegal. What to make of this?
Looked at this way, the Trump Administration’s policies make a lot more sense.
The first question is whether Mr. Murphy’s claims can be trusted. Here, there may be some reasons for doubt: Mr. Murphy has himself been accused of altering intelligence reports to better align with the Administration’s agenda, and he has also been accused of compiling intelligence reports on journalists at the Portland, Oregon protests (allegations he denies). After this information became public, Mr. Murphy was demoted, and so there is some speculation that perhaps his whistleblower complaint was made in retaliation for the demotion. On the other hand, Mr. Murphy apparently raised many of the issues listed in the complaint well before his demotion. Also, given that the allegations raised in the complaint are largely knowable (since others beside Mr. Murphy witnessed the events in the complaint and can confirm or deny their veracity), it seems unlikely that Mr. Murphy would simply make this stuff up. But of course, I do not know for sure.
Mr. Murphy’s credibility aside, this would not be the first instance of the Trump Administration altering country condition reports to better serve its agenda. In 2018, the State Department issued reports for El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras that left out significant derogatory information about those countries. The bowdlerization of those reports was no secret–all you have to do is compare the previous year’s reports to the newer reports to see what has been removed. And so there is clear precedent for what Mr. Murphy is alleging.
All things considered, my sense is that Mr. Murphy’s allegations are probably accurate. If so, what then do we make of Mr. Cuccinelli, the Acting Director of USCIS?
Here, there are two points I want to discuss. First is Mr. Cuccinelli’s desire to alter the reports in order to downplay the “corruption, violence, and poor economic conditions” in the three countries. Since asylum adjudicators rely on these reports to reach their decisions, making the countries seem less bad will potentially make it harder to win asylum. I say “potentially” because there are plenty of other sources of information that give an accurate picture of country conditions in the Northern Triangle. And so if the asylum applicant submits evidence about country conditions or if the adjudicator has such evidence, white-washing the DHS reports may not make much difference in the decision.
But there is a more concerning element to Mr. Cuccinelli’s request vis-a-vis these countries: Either he really believes that the DHS intelligence analysts are lying, or he (Mr. Cuccinelli) wants the U.S. government to lie in order to better achieve the Administration’s goal of denying more asylum cases. Neither possibility is comforting.
If we rely on Mr. Murphy’s account, it seems that Mr. Cuccinelli actually thinks that “deep state intelligence analysts” are somehow undermining Mr. Trump’s asylum agenda. Given that there are many sources for information about the Northern Triangle, including newspapers, human rights reports, and previous years’ intelligence assessments, and all seem to confirm the dire situation in Central America, it is hard to believe that a rational person would find anything nefarious about the picture painted by the DHS I&A reports. Does Mr. Cuccinelli believe that all the various sources are part of the “deep state”? It’s strange, since Mr. Cuccinelli is a lawyer and should know how to evaluate evidence. If Mr. Cuccinelli really believes that a group of deep state agents is sabotaging the country reports, it seems to me that he is living in an alternate reality, and that his confirmation bias is so overpowering that he can’t accept the real world for what it is. I suppose this is a possibility, as he also denies the existence of man-made climate change, which requires a certain level of detachment from reality.
The other possible explanation is that Mr. Cuccinelli knows that the situation in the Northern Triangle is bad, but that he is simply lying in order to make it more difficult for applicants from those countries to obtain asylum. In other words, that the “means” of lying and returning migrants to face persecution is justified by the “ends” of keeping asylum seekers out of our country.
Unfortunately, the situation described in Mr. Murphy’s whistleblower complaint is emblematic of the Trump Administration, which has repeatedly used falsehoods to justify its policies. Whether it engages in those falsehoods knowing them to be false, or believing them to be true, probably doesn’t much matter. Either way, they are doing great harm to our democracy and to many of our nation’s most vulnerable people.
As you’ve probably heard, the Republican Party has not adopted a new platform for 2020. Instead, they resolved that the “Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President’s America-first agenda.” I find this frightening.
The whole point of a platform is to get together (perhaps virtually) to discuss/debate the party’s priorities and then reach some consensus about how to proceed during the next four years. But now–in spite of significant new problems facing our country–the Republican Party has decided to simply defer to President Trump and stick with their 2016 platform. If you’re interested, I already wrote about the 2016 platform. In 2016. That an entire party, diverse in its opinions (if not its ethnic make-up), would take a pass on setting its goals, and instead agree simply to follow the leader, is deeply undemocratic.
That said, at least in terms of asylum seekers and refugees, we have a pretty good idea about what a second Trump Administration would do: Close the doors to America by every means at its disposal, including trampling due process of law (which endangers us all) and lying about the reasons why asylum seekers and refugees come here, who they are, and what they do once they get here (and of course, this never-ending mendacity also endangers us all).
Republican proposals include using a heat weapon to deter migrants.
So we have a general idea about what the Republicans would do with a second term, but what about specifics? Since the Republican Party itself won’t tell us its proposals related to asylum seekers and refugees, the intrepid reporters here at the Asylumist have scoured the internet to find out exactly what Mr. Trump has in mind if he is re-elected. Here is what we found–
The border patrol will deploy a heat ray weapon, which produces “agonizing pain” to those caught in its line of fire. The idea is that migrants caught in the device’s ray will turn back to Mexico before they become burnt toast.
ICE will continue to arrest thousands of non-citizen, thus demonstrating that it is more important to detain “illegals” in overcrowded, coronavirus-infected prisons, than to worry about public health. This also has the benefit of enriching the private-prison companies that hold immigrant detainees. In turn, those companies use their money to help bankroll President Trump’s re-election campaign. So it’s a win-win-win!
Since Mexico hasn’t paid for a wall (yet), Trump supporters have raised private funds through a group called “We Build the Wall,” which raked in $25 million from private donors who wanted to put their money where their hate is. How much wall they’ve actually built is anyone’s guess, but a number of the organization’s leaders–including ex-Trump aid Stephen Bannon–did manage to get themselves indicted for fraud. Despite this small hiccup, perhaps we can expect private funding of the border wall to continue under another Trump term.
During his first campaign, Mr. Trump famously opined that asylum seekers are bringing crime and drugs, and that they are rapists. “Some, I assume, are good people,” he said. But since most migrants are not good people, we have to continually treat them with suspicion. In that spirit, the Trump Administration wants to collect much more biometric evidence from non-citizens, including DNA samples. So essentially, immigrants will be forced to live in a surveillance state until they become citizens.
President Trump has gone back and forth about what to do for/to DACA recipients (people who came to the U.S. as children but who do not have status here). Recently, he proposed “taking care of people from DACA in a very Republican way.” Given how the Trump Administration has treated migrant children, asylum seekers fleeing gangs and domestic violence, and Muslims, the idea of being treated in a “very Republican way” does not seem all that appealing.
It’s unfortunate that we don’t have specifics from the Republicans about their immigration goals for the next four years. When a political party puts their proposals in writing, at least it requires members of the party to think through their plans, and it gives the public a clearer idea about what they hope to accomplish.
In the absence of a platform, we are left to speculate. And given the Trump Administration’s track record on asylum, refugees, and immigration, it seems unlikely that we can expect anything positive from them during a second term.
