The Unbearable Lightness of BIA-ing, Ten Year Anniversary Edition

by Jason Dzubow

Way back in 2010, I did a blog post about the Board of Immigration Appeals, where I complained that the Board issues too few decisions and does not provide enough guidance to Immigration Judges. Ten years later, things are no better. In fact, based on the available data, the Board is publishing even fewer decisions these days than it did back in the late aughts. Here, we’ll take a look at the situation in 2010, and then review where things stand now.

Before we get to that, we have to answer a preliminary question: What is the Board of Immigration Appeals? According to the BIA Practice Manual—

The Board of Immigration Appeals is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws. The Board is responsible for applying the immigration and nationality laws uniformly throughout the United States. Accordingly, the Board has been given nationwide jurisdiction to review the orders of Immigration Judges and certain decisions made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and to provide guidance to the Immigration Judges, DHS, and others, through published decisions. The Board is tasked with resolving the questions before it in a manner that is timely, impartial, and consistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act and regulations, and to provide clear and uniform guidance to Immigration Judges, DHS, and the general public on the proper interpretation and administration of the Immigration and Nationality Act and its implementing regulations.

Having completed their one published decision for the year, some BIA Board Members take a well-earned rest.

In essence, the BIA is supposed to be the Supreme Court of immigration law. But because the Board issues so few published decisions, it is not fulfilling its duties to provide guidance or ensure that laws are applied uniformly throughout the country. This is not a recent problem.

If you look back at the data from a decade ago, you will see that in 2007, the BIA decide a total of 35,394 cases and had 45 published decisions. In 2008, it decided 38,369 cases and published 33 decisions, and in 2009, it decided 33,103 cases and published 34 decisions. This means that for every 1,000 cases the Board decides, it publishes about 1 case. Looked at another way, during 2007, 2008, and 2009, the Board had about 15 Members (judges on the BIA are called Board Members). This means that in its most prolific year (2007), each Board Member would have had to publish three cases. I’m told that publishing a case is a real production, but even so, three cases per year? That seems pretty weak. The not-very-surprising result is that the Board is not providing the guidance that Immigration Judges need, and this contributes to a situation where different adjudicators are interpreting the law in widely inconsistent ways.

Fast forward 10 year and the situation is no better. In FY2016, the Board decided 33,241 cases and in FY2017, it decided 31,820 cases. In each year, the Board published just 27 decisions. In FY2018, the Board decided 29,788 cases and published 38 decisions, and in FY2019, the BIA published 22 decisions (EOIR has not released data about the number of cases adjudicated by the Board in FY2019). Indeed, in 2018 and 2019, the situation is even worse than these numbers suggest. That’s because in 2018, of the 38 published BIA decisions, 15 were actually decided by the Attorney General (meaning only 23 were decided by the BIA). In 2019, the AG published six cases, meaning that the Board itself published a paltry 16 decision, or–given the expanded number of Board Members–less than one published decision per Member.

Let’s digress for one moment to discuss the difference between an Attorney General decision and a BIA decision. The BIA derives its decision-making authority from the Attorney General. This means that the AG has power to decide immigration appeals, but he has given that authority to the specialists on the Board, who presumably know more about immigration law than their boss. However, because decision-making power ultimately comes from the AG, he can “certify” a case to himself and then issue a decision, which has precedential authority over Immigration Judges and over the Board itself. This means that if the Board issues a decision that the AG does not like, he can change it. Prior to the Trump Administration, AGs generally deferred to the Board and rarely certified cases to themselves for decisions. In the last two years of the Obama Administration, for example, the AG issued a total of three published decisions, two in 2015 and one in 2016, as compared to 21 AG decisions in 2018 and 2019 (to be fair, the Trump Administration did not issue any AG decisions in 2017). The main reason for the AG to issue decisions is to more forcefully implement the current Administration’s immigration agenda. Many who work in the field oppose this type of politicization of the immigration law, and organizations such as the National Association of Immigration Judges (the judges’ union) have been pushing for an independent court system.

Aside from politicization of the law, one result of the AG’s more active role in issuing decisions has been to sideline the BIA. I imagine this is not good for morale. Essentially, the “Supreme Court of Immigration Law” has been relegated to deciding unpublished decisions, which contribute little to improving the overall practice of law.

In any event, it has always surprised me how few decisions the BIA publishes. Chapter 1 of the BIA Practice Manual provides: “Decisions selected for publication meet one or more of several criteria, including but not limited to: the resolution of an issue of first impression; alteration, modification, or clarification of an existing rule of law; reaffirmation of an existing rule of law; resolution of a conflict of authority; and discussion of an issue of significant public interest.” Frankly, it is difficult to believe that fewer than one case in one thousand satisfies these criteria. As I wrote in 2010–

Although it might be more work over the short term, if the Board published more frequently, Immigration Judge decisions would become more consistent–creating less work for the BIA over the long term. It would also make life easier for the federal courts of appeals, saving government resources. Finally–and most important from my point of view–it would create more certainty and predictability for immigrants and their families.

All this remains true. But after three years of the Trump Administration appointing Board Members, many of whom are considered hostile to immigrants, perhaps now is not the time to complain about too few published decisions. Maybe. But I still think there exists a desperate need for guidance and consistency, and even the “unfriendly” Board Members are more inclined to follow the law than our current AG. In addition, there are many mundane, non-political issues that simply need deciding (such as this recent BIA decision). Despite the more hostile make-up of the Board, I still believe–as I believed ten years ago–that the BIA should embrace its role as “the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws” and publish more decisions.

Continue reading

94 Comments

Let’s Deny Asylum to Sick People!

by Jason Dzubow

Horace Walpole famously observed that the world is a comedy to those who think, and a tragedy to those who feel. That about sums up my view of the Trump Administration’s immigration policies: They are so ludicrous and so removed from reality that they would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that people are dying. The most recent proposed regulation neatly fits into this dichotomy; it is as absurd as it is harmful.

Using the pandemic as an excuse, the Administration proposes expanding an existing bar–applicable to aliens deemed a “danger to the security of the United States”–to deny asylum to “aliens who potentially risk bringing in deadly infectious disease to, or facilitating its spread within, the United States.” As usual, the main targets of this latest policy are aliens seeking asylum at the Southern border, but other applicants might be effected as well. Also, unlike some of the prior bans, this one specifically targets non-citizens seeking protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. 

Let’s start with the law. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), there are several “bars” to obtaining asylum. These bars prohibit granting asylum to aliens who (1) “ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated” in the persecution of others on account of a protected ground; (2) were convicted of a “particularly serious crime”; (3) committed a “serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States”; (4) are a “danger to the security of the United States”; (5) are involved in terrorist-related activities; or (6) were “firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States.”

Gesundheit! That’s German for “Asylum Denied.”

Do you notice anything about these different bars? Except for number 6, they all involve people doing bad things. While “danger to the security of the United States” could theoretically be interpreted to include sick people, when considered in relation to the other bars, that interpretation doesn’t make a lot of sense. Indeed, there is a principle of statutory construction called ejusdem generis, which basically says that when you have a list that contains a vague term, you should interpret that term consistent with other items on the list. The BIA famously invoked ejusdem generis (and called it a “well-established doctrine”) in Matter of Acosta, when it interpreted the meaning of particular social group. So it seems more than a small stretch for the Trump Administration to define “danger to the security of the United States” in such broad terms, and we can hold out some hope that this provision will be struck down because it violates the INA (and, by the way, the proposed regulation invokes similar logic to try to block people from obtaining Withholding of Removal). 

Assuming the new rule goes into effect, what constitutes a danger to security? According to the proposed regulation, “In determining whether there are reasonable grounds for regarding an alien or a class of aliens as a danger to the security of the United States… the Secretary of Homeland Security may consider whether the alien exhibits symptoms consistent with being afflicted with any contagious or infectious disease or has come into contact with such disease, or whether the alien or class of aliens is coming from a country, or a political subdivision or region of that country, or has embarked at a place, where such disease is prevalent or epidemic.” So if an alien seems sick, or if she traveled through an area that the U.S. government believes contains an epidemic, she will be barred from asylum. Worse, this regulation gives the government the power to bar a “class of aliens” from asylum. Presumably, that would be aliens from a particular country, or who passed through a particular area.

While this rule applies to all asylum seekers, I suspect that if it is implemented, it will mostly affect those who arrive at the border (or an airport) and request protection. Such aliens undergo a credible fear interview (an initial evaluation of asylum eligibility). If the alien “passes” the credible fear interview, he can present his claim to an Immigration Judge, who then grants asylum, some other relief, or orders the person deported. Up until now, the asylum bars did not apply to credible fear interviews. However, under the proposed regulation, an alien subject to a bar would “fail” the credible fear interview and likely be deported. This means that if an alien comes from, or passes through, an area where an epidemic is prevalent, or if she appears sick, her request for protection in the U.S. will be automatically rejected. 

Let’s think about this for a moment. Under this new rule, if a person was imprisoned, beaten and raped due to her political opinion, and then she escapes her country, she will be denied protection in the United States and sent home simply because she traveled through an area that is experiencing an epidemic. Even if she herself is not sick! How nice.

One last element of this proposed regulation that I want to discuss is the rule related to Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. Under the CAT, the U.S. cannot return a person to a country where he will be tortured. There are essentially no exceptions to this rule. But the proposed regulation seeks to change this–

If the alien makes this showing [that he is more likely than not to suffer torture in the home country], then DHS can choose in its discretion to place the alien in [Immigration Court] proceedings… or return the alien to a third country under appropriate standards.

In other words, when the alien arrives at the border to request protection, she must show that it is “more likely than not” that she will be tortured in the home country. This is a very high standard of proof for someone just arriving in the U.S. who likely does not understand the asylum system or have access to a legal counsel. Further, even if the alien somehow manages to demonstrate that she will be tortured in the home country, DHS can simply choose to send her to a third country (and this can happen–the Trump Administration has bullied or convinced Guatemala to accept some asylum seekers). Basically, we get to wash our hand of our responsibility to protect torture survivors.    

The only saving grace here is that this regulation is so poorly thought out that it is susceptible to a court challenge. Also, it seems to me that there is a much easier way to determine whether an asylum seeker is a “danger to the security of the United States” due to disease: Give him a test for that disease. If he is negative, there is no reason to bar him from asylum. If he is positive, maybe–I don’t know, this may sound crazy–help him get better. Treating human beings humanely. Sadly, it’s a novel concept in Trump’s America.

Continue reading

131 Comments

New (and Awful) Restrictions on Work Permits for Asylum Seekers

by Jason Dzubow

Let’s say I give you a million dollars (which I can easily do, given my lucrative earnings as an asylum lawyer). Let’s also say I put that money on the moon. Even though its yours, you can’t get it, and so it won’t do you any good. That’s basically what the Trump Administration is trying to do with asylum. 

Under U.S. law, non-citizens in our country have a right to seek asylum. But that right is meaningless unless applicants have the means to live here during the lengthy asylum process. On August 25, 2020, the Trump Administration plans to implement a new regulation, which denies Employment Authorization Documents (“EADs”) to some asylum applicants and delays the issuance of EADs to everyone else. The pretextual (lawyer-speak for bullshit) reason for the new rule is to prevent fraud. The real reason is to deter people from seeking asylum in the United States. Here, we’ll discuss the major provisions in this new regulation.

The first major change is the waiting period for an EAD. Until now, the regulations allowed asylum seekers to file their EAD application (form I-765) 150 days after their asylum application (form I-589) was received. Processing the I-765 usually took a few months, and so most asylum seekers would have their EAD card in hand within seven or eight months of filing for asylum. Under the new rule, asylum applicants must wait 365 days before filing for their EAD, and then wait a few more months for processing. This means that most applicants probably won’t have their EAD until at least 14 months after submitting the I-589. This new rule seems to apply to everyone who files for an EAD on or after August 25, 2020, even people who filed for asylum before that date. So if you are eligible for the initial EAD prior to August 25, you should file before that date. Otherwise, you will face an additional six months (or more) of delay.

No EAD? No problem. You can live off your trust account until you receive asylum.

The second major change is that people who file for asylum on or after August 25, 2020, and whose asylum application was not filed within one year of arriving in the United States, will be ineligible for an EAD “unless and until the asylum officer or immigration judge determines that the applicant meets an exception for late filing” or unless the applicant is an unaccompanied child. Sine the one-year bar will usually not be adjudicated until the asylum case is adjudicated, this new rule effectively means that people who do not file for asylum within one year of arriving in the country will not get an EAD. Again, this provision applies only to people who file for asylum on or after August 25, 2020. Also, even if you clearly meet an exception to the one-year rule, you would not be eligible for an EAD if you were in the U.S. for more than one year before filing for asylum (examples of people who are ineligible for an EAD include those who have maintained lawful status during their entire stay in the U.S. before filing, and people who decide to seek asylum after circumstances in the home country changed, causing them to fear return).  

Third, applicants who “entered or attempted to enter the United States at a place and time other than lawfully through a U.S. port of entry on or after August 25, 2020” are not eligible for an EAD. There are rare exceptions enumerated in the rule, but for the most part, people who enter the U.S. unlawfully and file for asylum will be barred from obtaining an EAD.

Fourth, it seems that people who move before they get an EAD are considered to have “delayed” their case if the move transfers their case to a different Asylum Office. They thus become ineligible for an EAD (“Delay” includes “A request to transfer a case to a new asylum office or interview location, including when the transfer is based on a new address”). For this reason, you should try not to move out of your Asylum Office’s jurisdiction from the time of filing until you get the EAD (you can see your office’s jurisdiction here).

Also, previously, asylum seekers who were paroled into the United States after “passing” a credible fear interview were eligible for an EAD based on category c-11. The new rule eliminates this basis of EAD eligibility, though such parolees could still apply for asylum and then file for an EAD after the 365-day waiting period.

Other provisions of the new rule basically codify existing practice. For instance, people who cause delay in their asylum cases and people who have criminal issues will likely be denied an EAD. 

The new EAD rules are particularly damaging when considered along side another proposed rule, which would deny asylum to people who work unlawfully and fail to pay taxes. The combined effect of these new regulations will be that asylum seekers are either forced to work illegally, thus jeopardizing their asylum claims, or they are forced to find some way of surviving in the U.S. for 1+ years without the ability to earn money.

On the positive side (and these days, we sorely need positive news), people who have EADs can continue to renew them in two-year increments, even if their asylum case is referred to Immigration Court or if they lose their case in court and appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. 

Given these changes, if you are planning to file for asylum and you entered unlawfully or have a one-year bar issue, you should file before August 25, 2020, when these rules are scheduled to go into effect. Also, if you are planning to seek asylum, you should file your application within one year of arriving in the United States, even if you would qualify for an exception to the one-year bar (again, to be clear, you can still overcome the one-year bar and receive asylum, but you will not receive an EAD while you are waiting for a decision in your case).

One remaining question is whether these new regulations might be blocked by a federal court. I suspect that there will be a court challenge to the rules. If such a challenge succeeds, my guess is that it will succeed on procedural grounds–in other words, that the Trump Administration failed to adequately justify the new rule (this is the basic reason that the Administration’s efforts to end DACA failed). Asylum seekers have no right to an EAD. See INA § 208(d)(2). However, given that it is impossible to obtain asylum unless you have the ability to survive in this country during the pendency of your case, there may be a basis to challenge this new rule. Let’s hope so.

Continue reading

194 Comments

Asylum Seekers Have Power! Here’s How You Can Help Save Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

As you probably know, the Trump Administration recently proposed regulations to make it much more difficult to obtain asylum in the United States. That’s the bad news. The good news is that there is something you can do to try to reduce the damage: Submit a comment opposing the regulation. Submitting a comment is easy, free, and safe, even for people with no lawful status in the U.S. You can do it from the comfort of your own home. Right now. And best of all, it really can help. Here, we’ll talk about how to submit an effective comment.

Before we get to that, let’s talk a bit about the proposed regulation, which you can see here. The purpose of this regulation (and every regulation) is to interpret the law, as created by Congress. Regulations are created by government agencies (in our case, by the Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review) because agencies have specialized knowledge about how to implement (or in our case, subvert) the law. The regulations cannot violate the law or they will be invalidated by courts. Also, regulations cannot be “arbitrary and capricious,” meaning the agency must provide a rational reason for the regulation. While there is a lot of bad stuff in the proposed regulation, I wanted to focus here on the points that people might be most interested to comment about–

  • The definition of “particular social group” is narrowed, so that it is more difficult to get asylum if you fear harm from gang members or criminals, or based on domestic violence or an interpersonal dispute
  • The definition of “political opinion” is narrowed to exclude people who have a generalized opposition to criminals or terrorists
  • The level of harm required to demonstrate “persecution” is increased, and so asylum applicants will need to show a “severe level of harm”
  • The categories of people eligible for asylum are reduced, and people who fear persecution on account of “gender” are excluded from asylum
  • The new rule encourages decision-makers to deny otherwise-eligible applicants based on “discretion” and lists several “significant adverse discretionary factors,” including–
    • unlawful entry into the U.S. or use of fraudulent documents
    • the failure to seek protection in any third country the alien “transited” through, unless that country denied protection to the alien, the alien was a victim of human trafficking or the country was not a party to the Refugee Convention of 1951, the Protocol of 1967 or the United Nations Convention Against Torture
    • remained unlawfully in the U.S. for more than one year before seeking asylum
    • failed to file or pay taxes, if required
    • failed to report income to the IRS (i.e., worked without authorization and did not pay tax – this one will be a particular problem if the plan to delay and deny work permits for asylum seekers goes into effect)
  • Otherwise-eligible applicants will be denied asylum as a matter of discretion where they spent more than 14 days in a third country before coming to the U.S. or where they transited through more than one third country before coming to the U.S. (there are some exceptions to this rule, similar to those listed for the prior bullet point about “transit” through a third country)
  • Applicants will be denied asylum where they “either resided or could have resided in any permanent legal immigration status or any non-permanent, potentially indefinitely renewable legal immigration status… in a country through which the alien transited prior to arriving in or entering the United States, regardless of whether the alien applied for or was offered such status”
  • Torture Convention relief is not available where the torturer is a “rogue” official
  • Finally, it is not clear, but as the regulations are written, they could be applied to people who already have asylum cases pending. Obviously, this would be unfair, as it would punish applicants for choices they made years ago (if the rules are applied retroactively, they might very well be blocked by a legal challenge)
Other significant adverse discretionary factors include filing for asylum, fearing persecution, and not being an American citizen.

If there are things here you don’t like, you can comment about them. How to do that?

First, go to this web page, where the proposed regulations are posted. If you look in the upper right part of the page, you will see a dark blue box that says “Comment Now!” Click on that, and you will be taken to a page where you can type your comment. If you want to be fancy, you can even attach files to your comment. You also have to type a name. You can type your own name, but you can also write “anonymous.” The name you type will be included when the comment is posted publicly. There is an option to include your contact information, but this information will not be displayed publicly. Once you are done, check the box indicating that you “read and understand” your statement and hit “Submit Comment.” That’s it. Easy peasy.

While you are on the regulation web page, you can look to see what other people wrote (on the right side of the page). When I last checked, there were more than 1,300 comments.

What should you say?

It is best to write an individualized statement, rather than use a pre-made template. If you are an asylum applicant, maybe think about any parts of the new regulation that might harm you and explain how you will be harmed. You might also write about why you chose to seek asylum in the U.S. (if, indeed, you had a choice) and what is your impression of the U.S. asylum system. Remember, as an asylum applicant, you have something important to say and your voice should be part of this conversation. One important point: All comments must be submitted prior to 11:59 PM Eastern time on July 15, 2020. Also, if you post a comment, and you don’t mind, please copy and paste what you write into the comments section of this blog (below).

If you’d like some additional advice about what to write, check out these postings by Tahirih Justice Center and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), or just read the comments already posted on the regulation. The federal government also provides general, but helpful, advice about writing a comment.

Finally, you might ask, Does posting a comment matter?

Apparently, it does. According to AILA, “The administration will review and address those comments before the rule becomes finalized, so it is critical for us to submit as many unique comments as possible.” More comments = a longer review process. This will buy more time before these draconian new rules are implemented. Also, the “government gives more weight to each comment if it is unique from others,” and so it is important to personalize your submission.

Since its inception, the Trump Administration has been waging war against the rule of law in our country. Immigrants and asylum seekers have always been the first target in this war, but they are far from the only target. In this particular battle, asylum seekers have a crucial role to play, and so I hope you will consider making a comment in opposition to the proposed regulations. Together, we can protect our asylum system and our country.

Continue reading

284 Comments

All the Bad News that’s Fit to Print (Updated 06/17/20, 06/18/20 – and it ain’t all bad!, 06/19/20)

by Jason Dzubow

[Updates to this post will appear at the bottom of the article]

There is an overwhelming amount of bad news these days. You’ve probably heard about the coronavirus pandemic and the upheavals caused by racial injustice, but in the last couple weeks, there has also been a flurry of bad news in immigration-world. We could spend months dissecting all that has happened, but here I just want to alert you to the highlights (or low-lights) of recent developments. Without further ado, then, let’s get this over with–

(1) The Administration has proposed sweeping new regulations that would dramatically impact asylum seekers. The main targets of these changes are (as usual) asylum seekers from Central America and Mexico–people fleeing gang violence and domestic violence–and people arriving at the Southern border and requesting asylum. But the proposed changes affect all asylum seekers. For an overview, see this brief article and this more detailed analysis, both by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick.

The new rule seeks to block asylum seekers who passed through a third country to reach the U.S., who failed to pay taxes or worked without authorization, and who have more than one year of unlawful presence in the United States. It also allows judges to “pretermit” (deny) asylum cases where the applicant has not set forth a prima facia case for asylum (this will be a particular problem for pro se applicants, who may not know how to articulate a valid claim). The regulation also narrows the definitions of “particular social group” and “political opinion” in order to more effectively block people who face violence from non-state actors. Further, the regulation raises the bar as to what constitutes “persecution” under the law, and encourages denying asylum based on discretion. Many of these rules are meant to affect people who have already filed for asylum, and could not have known about these burdensome new regulations when they asked for protection. While my take on all this is not quite as negative as that of Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (I don’t think everyone who passes through a third country will be barred), there is no question that, if implemented, these regulations will block many otherwise-eligible applicants from receiving asylum.

With all the bad news, I thought we could use a photo of a funny monkey. Take a moment to enjoy. And then keep fighting.

One last point: These regulations are not yet in effect. There is a 30-day comment period and the regulations would go into effect sometime after that, assuming they are not blocked by a court. In the mean time, you can submit comments here (use reference number “EOIR Docket No. 18-0002”). Apparently, if more people comment, it will help delay the implementation of the rule, so please consider submitting a comment.

(2) Due to a massive budget shortfall, USCIS is set to furlough over 70% of its workforce by the end of July. The agency claims that its financial problems are due to the coronavirus, but most observers (including me) believe that the main reason is the Trump Administration’s anti-immigration policies, which have blocked or discouraged many people from seeking immigration benefits. Since USCIS is 97% funded by user fees, the dramatic drop in applications has left the agency broke. It’s hard to imagine how cases will move forward if so many workers are laid off. This means we can expect even longer delays for work permits, green cards, naturalization, adoptions, work visas, and many other types of immigration benefits. Exactly which services will be effected, we do not yet know, but it appears that USCIS has already suspended processing of most green card applications. Worse, the departure of so many experienced employees will likely result in long-term damage to the agency.

USCIS publicly claimed that it requested $1.2 billion from Congress and that it would pay back the money by increasing user fees by 10% (on top of other proposed fee increases). However, as of last week, “the Trump administration had still not made a formal request for any emergency funding.” One knowledgeable USCIS employee I spoke with believes that the Administration has no intention to request the money or save the agency. She believes that destroying USCIS is part of the Administration’s plan to cripple our immigration system.

You can sign a change.org petition to demand that Congress fund USCIS, so it can continue its mission.

(3) An Office of the Inspector General report revealed that the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), the office that oversees the nation’s Immigration Courts, had substantially mismanaged its budget for FY 2019. The OIG investigation was initiated after EOIR Director James McHenry sent an email inaccurately characterizing the state of the agency’s budget. The report found that “EOIR leadership failed to coordinate effectively with its budget staff,” that the agency failed to anticipate the cost of court interpreters even though it had the necessary information to project those costs, and that “miscommunication across EOIR” led leadership to miscalculate its expenses. The National Association of Immigration Judges (the judges’ union) characterizes the situation at EOIR as follows–

The mismanagement uncovered by OIG in yesterday’s report is only the tip of the iceberg of persistent systemic and structural failures at EOIR. EOIR has failed to implement an electronic filing system, failed to properly hire judge teams as instructed by Congress, failed to secure adequate space to properly run the court and has persistently shuffled immigration judge dockets resulting in the unprecedented backlog of over 1 million immigration court cases.

The judges also reference a recent TRAC Immigration report, which indicates that data released by EOIR about grant rates in Immigration Court is “too unreliable to be meaningful.” TRAC notes that “EOIR’s apparent reckless deletion of potentially irretrievable court records raises urgent concerns that without immediate intervention the agency’s sloppy data management practices could undermine its ability to manage itself, thwart external efforts at oversight, and leave the public in the dark about essential government activities.”

(4) Speaking of EOIR, in a court-packing move that would make FDR blush, Director McHenry offered buyouts to nine BIA Board Members appointed prior to the Trump Administration. Though the agency denies it, this was a clear effort to further stack the Board with Members favorable to the Administration’s agenda. Indeed, the move follows an earlier decision to elevate six Immigration Judges with unusually high asylum denial rates to the Board of Immigration Appeals. For more on the politicization of the BIA, check out this posting by Judge Paul Schmidt, a former Chairman of the BIA with first-hand experience of an earlier purge at EOIR.

(5) We have been hearing news on our immigration lawyer list serves about a possible expansion of the non-immigrant visa suspension and an additional attack on asylum seekers. Nothing is known for sure, but it seems the Administration is planning to ban some non-immigrant visas (H-1b, H-2b, L-1, and certain J-1 visas) for a limited period, and to limit OPT for F-1 students. Also, we are hearing about the possible “rescission of employment authorization for asylees, refugees, and TPS holders that would face significant legal hurdles” (the quote is from my list serve; it is not an official announcement, and it is strange, as asylees and refugees are entitled to a work permit under the law). We do not yet know what this means, but my best guess is that the Administration will try to block EADs for asylum applicants (not asylees) who have a one-year bar issue.

(6) While this is not (yet) bad news, we are anticipating a decision in a Supreme Court case where the Trump Administration is attempting to end DACA (Deferred Action for Child Arrivals), the Obama-era program created to protect from deportation certain people who arrived in the U.S. as children. As many as 800,000 people could be effected. Given how the Court has ruled in past immigration cases, I’m not optimistic about the result, but we will have to wait and see. I’ve written about asylum for DACA recipients here, though the new proposed asylum rules would greatly reduce this already difficult option. 

(7) Education Secretary Betsy DeVos issued a rule barring colleges from granting coronavirus relief funds to DACA students. While Secretary DeVos claims that she is simply following the law as written by Congress, it seems that the law could have been interpreted to help the DACA students (and a substantial number of Congress people have protested the Secretary’s move). Since the pattern of this Administration is to harm the weak and vulnerable, it’s not surprising that Secretary DeVos interpreted the law in a way to exclude these students. The Secretary’s decision is the subject of a lawsuit, and so we will see what the courts decide.

Oy vey, That is more than enough for now. We can hope that courts will block some of these rules, but we also need to work to prevent a second term for this Administration, which has consistently lied about and attacked non-citizens and other vulnerable people. En la lucha! 

Update from 06/17/20

AILA [American Immigration Lawyer Association] has been in contact with USCIS, Hill staff, and reporters to obtain additional information on USCIS’s current guidance for the processing of adjustment of status applications. From what we have surmised, the hold on adjustment of status cases applies to cases that are pre-processed by the National Benefits Center before being sent to local USCIS field offices and specifically the following cases:

  • “I-485 interviews”; and
  • “I-485 interview waiver cases not already distributed”.

However, “emergent or sensitive” cases, such as those related to COVID-19, may be referred by officers to leadership to determine if the cases can move forward. It is also important to note that some adjustment cases are adjudicated by SCOPS (including for example, asylum, diversity visa, EB-4, T, U and VAWA cases).

Based on member reports, adjustment of status applications continue to be approved in instances where interviews have been waived. Therefore, the “hold” seems to be in reference to those cases that require in-person interviews before a final decision can be issued.

A hold on adjustment of status interviews could appear to be consistent with the information that USCIS has released concerning its phased reopening of in-person services. Although USCIS began reopening field offices for non-emergency services on June 4, 2020, the agency announced that “offices will reduce the number of appointments and interviews to ensure social distancing.” As local USCIS field offices begin reopening, USCIS has prioritized in-person services for naturalization oath ceremonies and naturalization interviews and continues to handle emergency services. AILA expects that as more social distancing protocols are lifted, USCIS should begin resuming other types of interviews and appointments.

However, given the hold on “interview waiver cases not already distributed” it seems to indicate that USCIS has stopped actively making interview waiver determinations and adjudicating those cases. Based on conflicting reports we have received it is unclear whether this is a temporary pause on interview cases or on all adjustment of status cases at field offices.

Update from 06/18/20

First, the good news – The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, has blocked the Trump Administration from ending DACA, thus (for now) protecting hundreds of thousands of people. The basic reasoning is that the Administration failed to follow the proper procedures needed to end the program. In short, the Administration’s maliciousness was defeated by its incompetence. This is a fantastic decision, and it shows that it is possible to defeat the Administration, even in the Supreme Court.

The other news is that we are receiving more information about the Administration’s plan to block asylum seekers from obtaining a work permit. There is still nothing official, but reports indicate that people who entered the country without inspection or who filed for asylum more than one year after arrival will be blocked from receiving an EAD while their asylum case is pending. Again, this has not been implemented or even officially announced, so we will need to wait for the actual proposal. 

Update from 06/19/20

New regulations, which will officially be published next week, basically signal that USCIS will be taking longer to adjudicate EADs for people with pending asylum cases. I will review these after they are published, but it seems unlikely to make a big difference, given how unpredictable processing times already are.

Continue reading

310 Comments

Why Immigrants Should Support Black Lives Matters, and How to Do It

by Jason Dzubow

For years, advocates for asylum seekers have been discussing the degradation of our nation’s immigration system: Due process protections have been eroded (or eliminated), non-violent aliens have been detained (sometimes for years), and asylum applicants and other immigrants have been subject to humiliating and cruel treatment. Why should this be so? Our immigration laws and our Constitution are far from perfect, but they provide certain rights to non-citizens, including the right to due process of law, the right not to be denied immigration benefits for reasons that are arbitrary and capricious, and the right to humanitarian protection for those who qualify. Unfortunately, the government often fails to fulfill its obligations (repeat: obligations) under the law, and as a result, immigrants are being denied their rights–including their right to life-saving humanitarian protection.

Immigrants, of course, are not the only people whose legal rights have been violated by the government. The pattern of mistreating and disenfranchising minority groups goes back to the founding of our country (and before). In many cases, discrimination has been sanctioned by law–against African Americans, Native Americans, Chinese Americans, and women, to name the most obvious groups. Slowly, painfully, over time, laws have changed. The law now provides for much greater equality than it did at the founding of our Republic, and in practice, the situation has improved. But as we know, there is much more work to be done.

Trump: “I am your law and order President. I make the law and you follow my orders!” Bible: “Owww! Stop touching me – it burns!”

The Black Lives Matter movement is a part of that work. All Americans should listen to what BLM has to say. Even those who disagree or who think they know better should listen to the lived experience of people who feel threatened by our government. No Americans should have to feel this way. Something clearly needs to change. But why should immigrants and asylum seekers care?

For one thing, many immigrants are people of color, and so the issues BLM is addressing should be of concern to non-citizens, who might one day face similar problems themselves.

Also, when the government mistreats one minority group, no minority group is truly safe. If the government has the power and the willingness to take away rights for one of us, it can take away the rights of any of us. Indeed, the whole idea of “rights” is that they are inviolable; the government cannot take them away unless we are afforded due process of law. When a government agent kills an unarmed Black man without justification or when it deports an asylum seeker without due process of law, it is violating those people’s sacrosanct rights. It stands to reason then, that if we wish to support the rights of one person, we must support the rights of all.

The above arguments are based on self interest (I will help you because it helps me). But there is another reason for immigrants to support the BLM movement–it is the right thing to do. The asylum seekers and immigrants that I have known tend to be very patriotic people. They believe in the American ideal. That is why they came here in the first place. Part of that ideal is that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. No group should face harm or discrimination due to their race or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation. It is un-American. And it is wrong. As citizens (or would-be citizens), it is incumbent upon each of us to help our nation move towards a more perfect union.

So what can be done to help?

Education: Learn about BLM’s goals and methods from leaders of the movement, rather than from secondary sources. Good starting points are the Black Lives Matter and Movement for Black Lives websites. There are also many movies, documentaries, and books that are worth checking out.

Protest: The ongoing protests are important, and will hopefully drive legislative and policy changes. Non-citizens can attend protests, and have a right to Freedom of Speech, the same as U.S. citizens. However, you should be aware that ICE agents have been deployed in response to protests and civil unrest. While these agents are (supposedly) not tasked with immigration enforcement, that is their raison d’etre, and so if you go to a protest, make sure to have evidence about your immigration status (such as a green card, work permit, I-94, filing receipt, etc.). If you have no status, make sure to have a plan in place in case you are detained (every non-citizen without status should have such a plan, whether or not they attend a protest).

Elections: As President Obama recently said, we have to mobilize to raise awareness and we have to vote for candidates who will enact reform. Non-citizens cannot vote. Indeed, such people can be deported for voting. So if you are not a U.S. citizen, please don’t try to vote. But this does not mean that you cannot participate in the upcoming elections. There is a lot you can do: Voter registration, canvasing, text-banking, phone-banking, etc. All this is important, as the outcome of the election will have life and death consequences for many people.

Contact Your Representatives: There is currently a bill pending in the House to condemn police brutality and racial profiling. The bill makes some good suggestions, including that the Justice Department should take a more active role investigating instances of police violence and discrimination, and for the creation of civilian review boards to provide community-based oversight of local police departments. Review the bill, and if you are so moved, contact your Congressional representatives and let them know. There is another bill pending in the Senate that aims to prevent discrimination by police and provide additional training. You can contact your Senators about this bill. Also, you can take action at the state and local level to push for reform.

Donate: For many of us, money is tight these days, but if you are able to make a donation, there are many worthy civil rights organizations that could use the support.

One last point, and I think this is important, as I often hear objections about BLM in the media and in conversation: It is not necessary to support every aspect of a movement in order to support that movement. I personally do not support all the goals of the Black Lives Matter movement. I do not support all their tactics, and I do not support all their rhetoric. This does not mean that I do not support the movement. I strongly believe that our country should focus far less on incarceration and far more on providing opportunities for all people to live safe, healthy, and productive lives. I also strongly believe that our country has not properly reconciled with its past and ongoing sins against African Americans and other racial minorities. Most of all, I believe that our nation has an obligation to listen to marginalized people and to respond to their needs. Thus, even if you do not believe in all aspects of BLM, I do not think that absolves you from listening to members of that movement and of working for a better society. All of us have an obligation to help bend the arc of history towards Justice. The Black Lives Matter movement is doing just that, and its success is our nation’s success. 

Continue reading

209 Comments

Asylum Offices and USCIS Will Start Reopening Next Week (Maybe)

by Jason Dzubow

As you might have noticed, USCIS offices have been closed for all in-person appointments–including asylum interviews and biometric appointments–since March 18, 2020. Now, USCIS has announced that it “is preparing some domestic offices to reopen and resume non-emergency public services on or after June 4.” What does this mean? What will the “new normal” look like at USCIS? Are we all going to die?

The first thing I notice about the USCIS announcement is that it is kind-of vague. “Some domestic offices” will reopen? I am not sure what this means. I suppose we will have to wait and see which offices actually reopen. Also, “on or after June 4” could be next week or it could be in 2099. In any event, it seems clear that USCIS is trying to get things moving again. Indeed, one of my clients is scheduled for an interview on June 29 in the Arlington Asylum Office and I have heard of other applicants receiving notices for interviews there as well. 

An Asylum Division manager explains how they will reopen their offices.

Second, it seems that the new interview process will be a bit different than what we are used to–

In accordance with social distancing guidelines, and due to the length of asylum interviews, asylum offices expect to conduct video-facilitated asylum interviews, where the applicants sit in one room and the interviewing officer sits in another room. Asylum offices will use available technology, including mobile devices provided by the agency, to ensure that the officer, applicant, interpreter and representative can fully and safely participate in the interview while maintaining social distancing.

This short description raises a few concerns related to (1) safety, (2) due process, and (3) security. In terms of safety, if the Asylum Officer is in his own room, that seems relatively safe, at least for the officer (though the officers still need to get to work and stay healthy in an environment with many coworkers). For the applicants, the situation is less clear. Presumably, they will have to wait in a waiting room. In normal times, we often spend considerable time waiting, as interviews are often delayed–sometimes for hours. I suppose applicants could be sent outside (to wander aimlessly?) and then contacted by phone when the officer is ready to see them. This would at least avoid overcrowding in the waiting area. Also, normally, asylum applicants have their fingerprints and photo taken when they check in to the interview. This often entails waiting in line while a staff member struggles with a fussy computer. Whether the offices have sufficient space to “social distance” while waiting to check in, I do not know.

During the interview, applicants are entitled to bring an interpreter and a lawyer. Will all those people share a room? No offense to my clients, but this is not very comforting. Will each of us have our own room? That seems to be the plan, at least in Virginia. Due to security concerns, Asylum Officers never left us unattended during interviews, even for a second, and so I am guessing that they will need empty rooms to put us into. But the rooms won’t be completely empty, since we will need video equipment (and hopefully chairs), and so I am not sure how that will work. Also, what stops us from leaving the room and wandering the halls of the Asylum Office (I myself might go in search of the mythical room where all my lost files are located). And where are they going to get all those empty rooms? My guess is that the “new normal” will involve far fewer interviews than the old normal, but I suppose the powers-that-be figure some interviews are better than none.

Another concern is due process. Asylum seekers are entitled to a fair procedure. I know from my experience in Immigration Court that video hearings are more difficult and less fair than in-person hearings, and I imagine the same will be true of asylum interviews. There is much that is easier in person. For example, at the beginning of the interview, the officer reviews the I-589 form and makes corrections. Sometimes, the officer wants to look at documents with the applicant. These things will be difficult to do if the officer and the applicant are in two different places. Also, if the lawyer, interpreter, and applicant are in different rooms, communication between them will be more challenging. Aside from this, it is simply more difficult to talk to a person by video (as we all now know from innumerable, interminable Zoom chats). This difficulty will be compounded if the applicant is wearing a mask, which may be necessary in the event she shares a room with her attorney or interpreter. All these protective measures will make it more difficult to interact with the Asylum Officer and will make an already stressful situation worse. In short, under the current circumstances, there will be significant barriers to receiving a fair adjudication.

An additional concern is security. Will the video equipment be secure, or might it be hacked by nefarious actors who want to harm asylum seekers? I do not know, but the federal government’s track record here is mixed, and for people seeking asylum, confidentiality is an important concern.

How does USCIS plan to keep asylum applicants safe? The agency has issued the following guidelines for entering USCIS facilities–

  • Visitors may not enter a USCIS facility if they:
    • Have any symptoms of COVID-19, including cough, fever or difficulty breathing;
    • Have been in close contact with anyone known or suspected to have COVID-19 in the last 14 days; or
    • Have been individually directed to self-quarantine or self-isolate by a health care provider or public health official within the last 14 days.
  • Visitors may not enter the facility more than 15 minutes prior to their appointment (30 minutes for naturalization ceremonies).
  • Hand sanitizer will be provided for visitors at entry points. 
  • Members of the public must wear facial coverings that cover both the mouth and nose when entering facilities. Visitors may be directed to briefly remove their face covering to confirm identity or take their photograph. There will be markings and physical barriers in the facility; visitors should pay close attention to these signs to ensure they follow social distancing guidelines.
  • Individuals are encouraged to bring their own black or blue ink pens.

My local office (Arlington) announced that telephonic appearances are not permitted for applicants because the Asylum Office must check identification. Also, the Asylum Office does not have any procedures for attorneys to appear telephonically (strange, since they do have telephones). All documents must be submit at least 72 hours before the interview, as there is apparently a new policy that requires 72 hours to pass before anyone can touch incoming mail. Finally, the Asylum Office will have a “very liberal” rescheduling policy, and so applicants can reschedule by email. Whether these same changes will apply at other offices, I do not know, but I imagine that all offices will follow similar procedures.

Like every other organization trying to reopen, USCIS is engaged in a difficult balancing act. How can they fulfill their mission and keep people safe? In my opinion, at the moment, they cannot do both. Given all the restrictions and contortions needed to make interviews happen, I expect they will only be able to interview a token few applicants. Under those circumstances, I do not see how it is worthwhile to endanger their staff and clientele (and anyone who comes into contact with them).

On the other hand, I know that many asylum seekers would be willing to take the risk. Not because they are reckless, but because they are so desperate to have their cases resolved and to reunite with family members. I can’t blame them for this.

There is no easy resolution to the dilemma. I hope USCIS will move cautiously, and I hope they will be able to keep people safe and provide them with fair interviews. We shall see.

Continue reading

194 Comments

USCIS’s Budget Woes – And What Can Be Done About It

by Jason Dzubow

Due to the coronavirus pandemic and the Trump Administration’s harsh anti-immigration policies, USCIS–the agency that oversees much of the nation’s immigration and asylum system–expects that “application and petition receipts will drop by approximately 61 percent” through the end of the current fiscal year (September 30, 2020). As a result, the agency is seeking a “one-time emergency request for funding” from Congress for $1.2 billion “to ensure we can carry out our mission of administering our nation’s lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity, and protecting the American people.” The agency plans to pay back this money by “imposing a 10 percent surcharge to USCIS application fees.” Presumably, this is on top of the dramatically increased fees the agency announced late last year (but which have yet to be implemented).

Unlike most government agencies, USCIS is largely user-funded. Indeed, the agency derives 97% of its budget from fees paid by its “customers” (immigrants and petitioners). These fees also largely cover the cost of the asylum system, which is currently free to applicants (though USCIS’s recent fee proposal includes a $50 fee for asylum). According to a USCIS spokesperson, without the injection of cash from Congress, the agency “would be unable to fund its operations in a matter of months.” This could result in “drastic actions,” which might include staff reductions. Already, USCIS employees have been notified that the agency is “severely strapped for cash due to the low number of new applications being filed,” and overtime, travel, and purchases have been put on hold.

In short, things don’t look good for USCIS. So what can be done?

There are lots of ways USCIS can increase revenue without raising fees.

USCIS is seeking additional funding from Congress and plans to pay back the money by increasing fees. But it seems to me there are better and more equitable ways raise money.

One idea is to expand the use of premium processing. Currently, certain forms for employment-based immigration allow the petitioner to pay an additional fee ($1,440) and have their case processed more expeditiously. Cases that ordinarily take many months are processed within 15 calendar days (this is the equivalent of strapping a warp drive engine to a Conestoga wagon). Paying for premium processing does not necessarily mean you receive a final decision in 15 days, but at least you get a response–either an approval, a denial or a request for additional evidence. In my experience, even if you receive a request for evidence and your case takes longer than 15 days, it is still adjudicated much more quickly than if you did not use premium processing.

I have long advocated that premium processing should be available to asylum seekers, but why limit this service to certain types of cases? Why not make it available to all USCIS applications and petitions? The agency does not have to stick with its 15-day time frame or the current fee. Maybe there could be different levels of premium processing with different time frames and different fees. Maybe some types of applications are simply not amenable to premium processing. It seems to me that these things are knowable and could be explored.

The broader use of premium processing would benefit not just those aliens who can afford it (though they would benefit the most). The injection of additional money into the system would ultimately benefit everyone. Also, by removing premium-processing cases from the mix, USCIS would have fewer “regular” cases to deal with, which would presumably allow them to move more quickly through those cases.

The way I see it, premium processing is an all around win: It helps those who pay for it, provides an option for those who need it (since some people have very good reasons to expedite their cases), improves processing times even for those who do not pay for it, and brings more money into the system, which could help keep costs down for all of USCIS’s customers.

Another idea to raise funds would be to create an online legal aid service within USCIS. There are currently private, internet-based organizations that provide fee-based assistance filling forms, filing applications, and in some cases, providing legal advice. Lawyers (such as myself) tend to be wary of these organizations, as some seem less-than legitimate and because they often cannot provide the comprehensive help needed to identify problems and resolve complex cases (also, of course, they undercut our fees, which most of us find less than endearing). But for ordinary cases, without undue complications, such services can provide cost-effective assistance to people who otherwise might not be able to afford a lawyer or secure pro bono counsel.

If private organizations can provide this type of limited legal assistance, why can’t USCIS? They certainly have the expertise. Also, it is not unprecedented for government agencies to provide help to their constituents. For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs maintains a list of accredited representatives who help veterans and their family members for no fee or a low fee. If the VA can offer this service for free, why can’t USCIS offer a similar service for a reasonable fee? The assistance could take the form of “smart” fill-able forms that provide comprehensive advice about how to do it yourself, and maybe a hot-line or in-person office, where the applicant could obtain help. Fees would vary–automated assistance might be inexpensive (or at least comparable to the existing private agencies that provide this service), while “live” help would be more expensive. If this model is economically viable for private organizations, I imagine it would turn a profit for the federal government as well.

Like premium processing, an in-house legal aid program would benefit everyone. It would directly help the people who could afford it, but it would also help reduce the burden on existing non-profit legal aid organizations, and so they could serve more people in need. 

There are plenty of other ideas as well. For example, USCIS could re-instate adjustment of status based on INA § 245(i), where a person who entered the U.S. illegally can pay a penalty and obtain their residency based on a family or employment petition (currently, and with rare exceptions, people who entered illegally need to leave the U.S. to obtain residency). Also, USCIS could also stop wasting manpower and postage by arbitrarily returning applications for minor mistakes (which previously were addressed at the interview).

As you can see, USCIS has different options for increasing revenue. But given the Administration’s hostility towards immigrants, it is not surprising that they are choosing to raise fees, which is the least equitable and most damaging path available to them. With a minimum of creativity, they could come up with alternative solutions that would raise money, improve efficiency, and benefit migrants. Unfortunately, the primary concern of USCIS is not really the agency’s economic well-being. Rather, USCIS wants to weaponize fees in the same way it has weaponized bureaucratic procedures–to reduce immigration and prevent eligible people from obtaining status in the United States. 

Continue reading

95 Comments

What If Joe Biden’s Accuser Was Held to the Same Standard as Witnesses in Immigration Court?

by Jason Dzubow

In 1993, Tara Reade was a legislative aid for then-Senator Joe Biden. In 2019, she went public with an allegation that Mr. Biden “used to put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck.” She says she complained about the behavior after it happened, but then faced retaliation, which caused her to leave her job. In March of this year, Ms. Reade stated that on one occasion, when she was alone with Senator Biden, he pushed her against the wall “and then his hands were on me and underneath my clothes. And then he went down my skirt, but then up inside it and he penetrated me with his fingers. And he was kissing me….” In her 2020 statement, Ms. Reade indicated that she made a contemporaneous complaint alleging sexual harassment, but not sexual assault. Several people–including Ms. Reade’s brother and a friend–have stated that she told them about the assault years ago, and there is some evidence that Ms. Reade made a complaint during her time in the Senate.

Ms. Reade’s allegations got me thinking: How would her testimony and evidence be evaluated under the standard applied to asylum seekers testifying in Immigration Court? Let’s start with the legal standard, as set forth in INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii)—

[A] trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record… and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.

For-Biden touching or Reade-iculous allegation? You decide.

So right away, we can see an issue: Ms. Reade states that she complained about sexual harassment in 1993 and she publicly claimed sexual harassment in 2019, but then in 2020, she stated that she was also the victim of a sexual assault. This is an inconsistency.

But an inconsistent statement is not necessarily fatal to a credibility determination. Applicants must be given an opportunity to explain any inconsistencies. In our case, Ms. Reade stated that she did not disclose the assault in 1993 because she was traumatized, and that she did not mention it in 2019 because she was uncomfortable with the interviewer’s questions and fearful of a backlash against her. She decided to reveal the full story in 2020 because she felt she needed to do so for her daughter and for other victims of sexual assault, and because she felt Joe Biden should apologize.

Once a witness provides an explanation, the decision-maker has a certain amount of leeway to evaluate that explanation. According to the Board of Immigration Appeals, “An Immigration Judge is not required to accept a respondent’s assertions, even if plausible, where there are other permissible views of the evidence based on the record.” Where does this leave us? Nowhere too helpful, I would submit.

On the one hand, we could find Ms. Reade’s testimony incredible, since it has changed over time and her most recent (and most serious) allegations are different from what she allegedly claimed in 1993 and what she described in 2019. On the other hand, she has presented an explanation for the inconsistency, which is based on the trauma and shame she suffered, as well as on her fear of further harm. Given this evidence, a reasonable fact-finder could decide either way on credibility, and such a decision would likely survive an appeal (where factual findings are subject to a “clearly erroneous” standard of review).

Since the decision-maker could go either way, what would account for a particular decision? In Ms. Reade’s case, the decider’s view of sexual assault in general would be one factor. Do victims make false accusations? Do perpetrators deny their guilt? How much evidence is enough? In this particular case, I imagine partisan loyalty would also be a factor for many decision-makers, especially in such a hot political environment where an allegation of sexual assault could impact the upcoming election. And speaking of partisan loyalty, what about Ms. Reade’s political views? Are they relevant to impugning or bolstering her claim? What about the fact that she is exposing herself to terrible harassment (and maybe worse). How do we weigh these factors in terms of evaluating her motive? Also, how do we account for other women accusing Joe Biden of inappropriate touching? Do these allegations weigh against him (because he engaged in inappropriate conduct) or in his favor (since that conduct seems not to have risen to assault)? In short, it seems to me that the decision about Ms. Reade’s credibility tells us more about the fact-finder’s views than about the facts of her case.

If I am correct about Ms. Reade’s claim, what does this mean for credibility in asylum cases? In some ways, the situations are analogous. We have to listen to a witness and evaluate credibility. It’s also fairly common for asylum applicants to change their stories over time. This may be legitimate (it often takes time and trust to extract painful details from a traumatized person) or not (some applicants seek to bolster their claims by lying). As with Ms. Reade’s case, there is often additional evidence, which also needs to be evaluated for credibility and evidentiary value, and in cases where this evidence is strong, it may be determinative of credibility. In other cases, the credibility determination will depend largely on the decision-maker’s inherent biases. I suspect this is largely what accounts for the arbitrariness of asylum adjudication. 

In Ms. Reade’s case, I doubt we will ever see a definitive answer about her claims. They are too old and too subsumed by partisanship to be resolved with much confidence. Many asylum claims are also not amenable to a definitive conclusion due largely to limited resources (of the applicant and the adjudicator). In both situations, we are left with our own biases, which are a poor substitute for knowing the truth. 

Continue reading

101 Comments

Neuroscience, Memory, and Credibility in Immigration Court

by Jason Dzubow

This article is by Aldis Petriceks of Harvard Medical School, Erin Shortell of Harvard Law School, and Dr. Francis X. Shen, JD, PhD. Executive Director, Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Law, Brain, and Behavior; Instructor in Psychology, Harvard Medical School; Senior Fellow in Law and Applied Neuroscience, Harvard Law School Petrie-Flom Center.

The success of an asylum claim relies, to a large degree, on the perceived credibility of an asylum seeker’s memory. The Real ID Act of 2005 states that “[t]he testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee” (emphasis added). Asylum officers and immigration judges are told, in a sense, to act as mind readers, subjectively deciding whether or not to believe the narratives of asylum seekers.

But how do judges and asylum officers assess credibility? Additional evidence, such as physical signs of abuse or country-level evidence of systematic torture, can bolster credibility in this context. But such evidence may not be available, and even if it is, credibility assessments still turn on asylum adjudicators’ subjective perceptions of asylum seekers’ memories.

Introducing your authors: Aldis Petriceks, Erin Shortell, and Francis X. Shen.

Credibility determinations thus often rest on the consistency (or lack thereof) in an asylum seeker’s story. The REAL ID Act provides that “ … a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on … the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements … , the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record … , and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.”

Asylum applicants will often recount their stories at multiple points in the legal journey, including immediately upon entry into the U.S.; in a subsequent written affidavit; and before an asylum officer or immigration judge. If inconsistencies or inaccuracies emerge, the asylum adjudicator often infers that the asylum seeker intends to deliberately mislead him or her.

There is, of course, a logic to this inference. If the story changes, one might reasonably infer that the storyteller is purposely crafting a narrative more favorable to a preferred legal outcome.

Intuition is important, but decades of research into the neuroscience of memory suggest that such intuitions need to be carefully examined. Research conclusively shows that memory is not a digital recording of our lives, and thus changes in asylum seekers’ narratives over time may not be due to deliberate deception but rather to the nature of human memory itself.

Autobiographical memories are not accessed as one might re-watch a scene from a movie. Rather, memories are “dynamically reconstructed mental representations,” and they change every time they are retrieved and recounted.

Memory scientists typically talk about three phases of a memory: Encoding (when the sensory systems first register the sights, sounds, smells and more of an event); storage (when that memory gets tucked away in the brain for later use); and retrieval (when the memory is consciously recalled). Context affects each of these stages. Of great relevance to asylum seekers’ credibility is the well-known finding that trauma and stress affect how memories are initially encoded, whether and how they are stored, and how we consciously recall them.

The bottom line for credibility is that inconsistencies in autobiographical recall may not reflect a willful attempt to bend the truth, but rather the biological reality that recalling memories usually involves modification of those memories in ways of which most people are not fully aware.

Do asylum adjudicators take notice of this neuroscience? In theory, they could. The Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations Directorate (“RAIO”) Manual for Officer Training tells officers that it is “[their] job to determine whether those inconsistencies and/or contradictions are due to a lack of credibility or may be explained by other factors.” One of these “other factors” is the basic neurobiology of trauma and memory. But in practice, it is difficult to gauge the extent to which asylum officers abide by this instruction.

What would it mean for asylum adjudicators to better understand the relationship between memory, narrative inconsistency, credibility, and the human brain? To begin, it would entail the realization that many asylum seekers have endured tremendous trauma, and that this trauma often has documented effects on memory. Asylum seekers who have experienced trauma in their home countries, on the way to the U.S., or upon entry into the U.S., are often burdened by these effects. Brain scan research on individuals with PTSD, for instance, finds decreased activity in the brain networks associated with autobiographical memory, and an associated decrease in specific autobiographical recall. Given the prevalence of PTSD among asylum seekers, it is likely that many otherwise credible refugees will fail to describe their journeys, fears, and traumas in a detailed, coherent manner across multiple interviews. This failure, however, does not necessarily indicate a lack of credibility.

Acute stress often interferes with autobiographical memory. People perform more poorly on memory tests after injections of hydrocortisone, a compound which mimics the effects of cortisol on the body. When faced with significant trauma, children often recount memories in a vaguer, less detailed manner, regardless of the presence or extent of primary psychological conditions.

It remains unknown exactly how trauma and memory are related in the brain. Some researchers believe that trauma leads to an over-general mode of autobiographical memory largely because the exclusion of detail might prevent re-traumatization. Others argue that trauma directly alters the activity of certain neurological networks, changing one’s ability to retrieve and recall specific memories. Regardless of the particular theory embraced, however, there is general agreement that people with histories of trauma have more altered capacities to remember specific details of events in their lives, and that those alterations are at least associated with measurable changes in neurological structure, function, and physiology.

So far, this neuroscientific knowledge has not been widely introduced to asylum officers or immigration judges. When these adjudicators determine that an applicant is not credible, “they overwhelmingly rely on inconsistencies within or among the various versions of the applicant’s story.” Can this gap between scientific understanding of memory and legal practice be bridged? At the MGH Center for Law, Brain, and Behavior, we think the answer is yes—with sustained effort and input from multiple disciplines.

Three areas are ripe for exploration. First, attorneys and judges need an improved understanding of how autobiographical memory works. To be sure, memory neuroscience cannot provide an asylum officer or immigration judge with an individualized “credibility detector.” But neuroscience can provide evidence for re-examining default presumptions that tend to equate inconsistency with deliberate falsehood.

Second, scientific articles standing alone are not sufficient to inform legal doctrine and practice. Actionable neuroscience requires the development of materials that can be readily adapted by lawyers to put forth arguments related to neuroscience, memory, trauma, and credibility.

Third, extended dialogue is required to explore both the promise and pitfalls of introducing neuroscience into asylum case law. For instance, might neuroscience memory research allow government lawyers to challenge otherwise consistent recollections? Just as a criminal defense attorney might call a “false memory” expert to aid his or her client’s defense, could similar arguments be made in the asylum context to undercut genuine claims of persecution? These and other concerns must be adequately addressed as part of an on-going law and neuroscience dialogue.

As with any new endeavor, the path for neuroscience and law in asylum cases is not clear. But there is much promise, and we hope there will be much more dialogue in the future.

About the MGH Center for Law, Brain, and Behavior: The Center for Law, Brain, and Behavior works at the vanguard of applied neuroscience, making neuroscience actionable for the legal community in order to ensure just and positive outcomes for all those affected by the law. Though the brain and the law are both complex, our work is quite simple: helping judges, lawyers, case workers, enforcement agents and many other actors across the legal ecosystem determine the right solutions for the right people and cases. We promote and enable the sound application of accurate neuroscience to critical areas of the legal process: criminal trials and sentencing, juvenile justice, elder protection and immigration enforcement and asylum. For more, see clbb.org.

Continue reading

94 Comments

An Asylee on the Front Line of the Pandemic

by Jason Dzubow

I first met David (not his real name) in 2012. He had come to the United States from a Middle Eastern country and decided to seek asylum here. At the time, many democracy activists from his country were fleeing a government crackdown. One of David’s family members—a prominent member of the pro-democracy movement—referred him to me. David is a member of a religious minority, and he is a Biomedical Engineer by training. In his home country, he and his family members faced some pretty harrowing instances of persecution on account of their religion and their democratic leanings.

Fortunately, David’s asylum case was granted. He later became a lawful permanent resident, and he is currently in the process of becoming a U.S. citizen.

Police officers pay tribute to David and other hospital workers.

In the mean time, he obtained his equivalency degree, which allows him to work in his field in the United States (this is a somewhat obnoxious process, whereby a private agency certifies that a foreign degree “is equivalent to” a degree from an institution in the U.S.). He got a job as a Biomedical Engineer at a large hospital in the United States, and was promoted several times over the course of a few years.

When the pandemic started, David was tapped to lead a medical equipment project at the hospital’s command center, and to build up a new department to deal with the crisis. He and his team are working around the clock to receive, assemble, build, inspect, and install equipment such as ventilators, IV pumps, bed side monitors, servers, and more.

Fueled by obscene amounts of espresso, in one week, David and his team installed and uploaded drug libraries for 1000 IV pumps and installed 600 IV poles. They also installed and inspected more than 200 ventilators and 200 ICU beds. In addition, to get ready for COVID-19 patients, they prepared and installed medical equipment–such as central bedside monitors, ICU beds, nurse call devices, and ventilators–for three new departments at the hospital. All this while working in an environment where the coronavirus is a ubiquitous threat.  

Medical equipment prepared by David and his team.

I asked David how he feels about all that he has accomplished since the pandemic began, and despite the difficult circumstances, he uses words like “great” and “awesome” because, he says, he is not just doing a job, he is really helping to save lives. Also, he is proud that even though he has only been at the hospital for a few years, he is responsible for critical parts of the mission and for training a team that is working through the pandemic.

David’s work is incredibly impressive. He is helping to save many lives. But the fact is, he is not all that unique. According to a 2019 study in Health Affairs, 1 in 4 healthcare workers in the United States is foreign-born. It’s ironic that at a time when immigrants and asylum seekers are under assault by the federal government, they are playing such an outsize role in our fight against the coronavirus. I only hope that more Americans will come to appreciate how people like David are selflessly working to protect Americans from the deadly pandemic.

Espresso kept the team going.

One final point, and I think this speaks to David’s character and his bravery during this difficult time. I remember when we were preparing his asylum case, I asked him about whether he faced any harm in his country. He mentioned a few incidents and could not think of anything more. Then, his relative asked, “Didn’t the extremists shoot you?” Yes, he responded, they did try to shoot him, but the bullet passed over his shoulder and hit a wall behind him. Since they missed, David hadn’t really paid much attention to the incident. I imagine that this type of grace under fire (literally) is serving him well in his current role.

If you would like to support David in his life-saving work, consider making a donation to Direct Relief, a national non-profit that has been helping to get protective gear and critical care medications to as many health workers as possible.

Continue reading

119 Comments

The Executive Order “Suspending Entry of Immigrants”

by Jason Dzubow

When the President issues an executive order, he first enlists experts to review the data and determine the exact nature of the problem. He then commissions a study to examine possible solutions and look at the pros and cons of each option. He carefully considers the law and takes into account dissenting points of view. His staff then crafts an order to achieve the desired ends, while avoiding as many negative externalities as possible.

I’m joking of course.

In the case of the new Executive Order, President Trump issued a late-night Tweet. Then, his staff, caught by surprise, scrambled to implement their boss’s vision and voila! An Executive Order was born.

America: Banning immigrants since 1882 (hows that working out for you?).

The new EO, issued yesterday evening, is based not on the Trumpian trope that immigrants bring disease. Rather, the order is justified based on the current economic crisis. Indeed, the title of the EO is Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak. This was probably a wise move, as we are now the epicenter of the pandemic, and so it would be difficult to justify keeping people out of our country due to health concerns. The economic justification, on the other hand, will be easier to defend (recall that under the Administrative Procedures Act, courts can block a regulation that is “arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law”). While there is ample evidence that immigrants start more businesses than native born Americans and that 51% of start-ups worth $1 billion or more were founded by foreign-born entrepreneurs, there is some (less convincing) evidence that immigration depresses wages for certain groups, such as blue collar workers. But given the low threshold of the Administrative Procedures Act, this is probably enough of a justification for the EO to pass muster, particularly in the Supreme Court, which has been very deferential to the President’s authority vis-a-vis immigration.

So let’s talk about what the EO does and–more importantly–what it does not do.

First, who is blocked from obtaining a Green Card? As far as I can tell, the only people blocked from obtaining a Green Card are those who are currently overseas and who currently do not have a U.S. visa or other travel document. Essentially, this means that U.S. Embassies will stop issuing new travel documents for immigrants to come to the United States. For immigrants who already have their visa or travel document, they can still come to the U.S. Also, spouses and unmarried, under-21 year old children of U.S. citizens are excepted from the ban and can still immigrate to the United States. Other relatives, such as parents, siblings, and older children of citizens are blocked. Also blocked are family members of Green Card holders and most people seeking residency through employment. However, the ban does not apply to medical professionals and their immediate family members, EB-5 investors, adoptees, spouses and children of members of the military, aliens entering on a Special Immigrant Visa, and aliens whose admission is in the national interest or who are assisting a law enforcement investigation. In short, this is a fairly narrowly-tailored suspension of immigration, though for those people who are blocked, it will be difficult.

Second, how long does the “suspension” last? The EO indicates that it will remain in effect for 60 days. After that, depending on economic conditions, it could be extended.

Third, it is important to understand who is not affected by the EO. People seeking non-immigrant visas are not affected. Permanent residents (i.e., people who already have a Green Card) are not affected, whether they are currently in the U.S. or overseas. No one who is currently inside the United States is affected by the EO. This includes permanent residents, asylum seekers, asylees, refugees, and people applying for immigration benefits (inside the U.S.), such as a Green Card or asylum (one exception here might be people who wish to leave the U.S. and return using a provisional waiver). Also, the EO has no effect on Employment Authorization Documents (“EAD”) or on the right to seek humanitarian protection. Indeed, the EO specifically states–

Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to limit the ability of an individual to seek asylum, refugee status, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, consistent with the laws of the United States.

Fourth, there are still parts of the EO that are not clear. One important question is whether I-730 beneficiaries are subject to the ban. Based on the above language, my sense is that they will not be affected, but I am not sure. Also, I am not sure about K-1 fiances, but since the K-1 is technically a non-immigrant visa, I expect that fiance-beneficiaries will not be affected. Finally, the biggest question is whether the ban will end in 60 days, or whether it will be extended if–as seems likely–the economic crisis persists. A 60-day suspension of immigrant visas will be manageable for most effected people. However, if the ban is extended, the harm to families and business will increase significantly.

Given that embassies are already mostly closed, numerous travel restrictions are already in place, and many flights are canceled, I’d venture that the new EO will have very little real-world impact. What then is the point?

On its face, the EO is meant to protect American workers from foreign-born competitors, but given all the exceptions to the ban, I doubt the order will result in a significant drop in immigration (beyond what we’ve already seen as a result of the world-wide shutdown). Thus, even if you buy into the proposition that immigrant labor has a negative impact on the job prospects for U.S. citizens, I do not see how the EO will protect many American workers. 

If all this is correct, then the only remaining purpose of the EO is to frighten non-citizens and to delight nativists. Unfortunately, I suspect it will accomplish both of those goals. But to my immigrant friends, it is important to understand that for all its sound and fury, the Trump Administration has achieved little with this new Executive Order. Perhaps that fact can provide some level of comfort in these dark times.

Continue reading

132 Comments

No More Immigration? Let’s Wait and See

by Jason Dzubow

In response to the pandemic, President Trump has Tweeted that he will “temporarily suspend immigration into the United States.” What does this mean? Does President Trump have the authority to suspend immigration into the country? Will the order affect people who are already here? How long will this “temporary” suspension last?

The answer to most of these questions is that we don’t yet know. While the President likes to announce policy changes on Twitter, the announcement should not be confused with the policy change. We will need to wait for the Executive Order to know the details of this plan. But speaking generally, it seems to me that the President probably does have the authority to suspend immigration during a health emergency. As my friend Alex Nowrasteh, Director of Immigration Studies at the Cato Institute, states, “Title 42 of the U.S. Code enables the president to halt immigration for health reasons, while a recent Supreme Court decision upholding his travel ban gives him unlimited authority on immigration.”

Since the U.S. has more cases than any other country, it obviously makes sense to block immigrants from coming here.

Also, the President has broad authority over immigration as set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act. For instance, INA § 212(f) provides, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” Another section, INA § 215(a) states, “Unless otherwise ordered by the President, it shall be unlawful… for any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.” These sections are quite broad, and have not been tested in court, but given the Supreme Court’s position on immigration in recent cases, it seems likely that an order suspending immigration into the country during the pandemic would be upheld.

In practical terms, though, I am not sure what the suspension actually means. For one thing, immigration is effectively already suspended, given that U.S. Embassies are generally not issuing visas and most flights are canceled. Also, there are existing restrictions on travel from many countries, including China and the EU. So whether an executive order actually changes anything, I am not sure.

Finally, in terms of the unknowns, it is important to wait for the actual Executive Order. Once we have that, we can analyze the legality of the order and any practical effects. Speculating about what the order will say is not helpful, and will likely only result in unnecessary stress. The Trump Administration has been targeting immigrants from the get go, and so this is just one more effort in that direction. We do not know whether the order will impact people already in the U.S. who are seeking status (asylum seekers or applicants for permanent residency). We also do not know if it will affect people with pending applications or applications for work permits. We do not even know if the order will affect people seeking to enter the United States with a non-immigrant visa. Indeed, we know nothing except what was contained in one late-night Tweet.

The fact is, while the President has broad authority over immigration (especially given the deferential position of the Supreme Court), that authority is not unlimited. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, courts can block a regulation that is “arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” So for example, while there may be a rational basis to prevent people from coming into the United States during the pandemic, it will be harder to justify denying asylum or a Green Card to people who are already here (aside from that, given the time frame for most applications, the pandemic may be long over before they are adjudicated).

In short, despite the President’s ominous Tweet, we need to remain calm. It’s unlikely to make any real difference in the short term, and when the pandemic eases, which it inevitably will, the justification for an order limiting immigration will be much weaker.

It is truly unfortunate that our President seems only to have one solution for every problem: Blame foreigners. In the mean time, our country has become the epicenter of the pandemic, with more cases and more deaths than any other nation. Yet another attack on noncitizens will not help our economy and will not keep us healthy. For now, we will have to wait to see what the Executive Order says, but regardless, we the people must continue to support each other and to stand together against the coronavirus and against the unjust attacks on our noncitizen neighbors. 

Continue reading

73 Comments

What You Can Do While Courts Are Closed: Get a Copy of Your File

by Jason Dzubow

Have an asylum case in Immigration Court and wondering what to do while the courts are closed? My friend David L. Cleveland has a suggestion: Get a copy of your file from the Asylum Office. David is a lawyer in Washington, DC. He has secured asylum or withholding for people from 48 countries. He can be reached at 1949.david@gmail.com.

In most cases, when an asylum applicant has their case denied at the Asylum Office, the case is referred to Immigration Court. There, Immigration Judges sometimes deny asylum because the applicant is deemed incredible. The applicant has told the Asylum Officer one thing, but then tells the Judge something different. There are many examples of Judges being annoyed by inconsistent asylum applicants–

  • In a New York case, the applicant was inconsistent concerning the location of children and where she was raped. Kalala v. Barr, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8320 (2nd Cir. 2020).
  • in a California case, the applicant was inconsistent concerning the name of a police station. In this case, the Asylum Officer’s notes were shown to applicant for the first time during the Individual Hearing. Sun v. Barr, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5397 (9th Cir. 2020).
  • In an Ohio case, the applicant testified to being beaten inside a church. When she asked about how many members of the church were present at the time, she first said 15. Later, she testified that six church members were present. Onoori v. Barr, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21310 (6th Cir. 2019).
Now that he has a copy of his client’s file, David Cleveland is finally able to relax.

More generally, Immigration Judges are very interested in what Asylum Officers do and write. In a case decided in 2019, the phrase “Asylum Officer” is used 32 times. Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2019). In a 2018 case, the phrase “Asylum Officer” is mentioned 57 times, and “notes” (referring to the Officer’s notes from the asylum interview) was mentioned several times. Dai v. Sessions, 884 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2018). In another case, from 2014, an Asylum Officer named “Kuriakose” is mentioned 15 times. Li v. Holder, 745 F.3d 336 (8th Cir. 2014).

In these cases, asylum applicant’s were deemed not credible because their Court testimony was inconsistent with their testimony at the Asylum Office. Most likely, the applicants did not have a record of what they told the Asylum Officer, and of course, since years pass between an asylum interview and an Individual Hearing, it is difficult to remember what transpired at the Asylum Office.

How can I prevent surprise in Immigration Court?

When an Asylum Officer interviews an applicant, the Officer takes detailed notes. Often, these run to 10 pages or more. Later, in consultation with his supervisor, the Officer writes an “Assessment to Refer” or an “Assessment to Grant.” This document is usually three or four pages long. If the case is referred to Court, these notes do not go to the Immigration Judge. However, they are sent to the DHS attorney (the prosecutor), who can review them and look for inconsistencies. At the Individual Hearing, the DHS attorney can use the notes to impeach an applicant’s credibility (“At the asylum interview, you testified that there were 15 people present in the church when you were beaten, but now you say there were only six. Were you lying then, or are you lying now?”).

Asylum Officers sometimes make mistakes or include unexpected information in their notes. They find some sources of information important and ignore other sources. In short, there is a subjective element to these notes that can sometimes work against the applicant and cause surprises in Immigration Court. And, as any attorney will tell you, surprises in Court are usually bad news.

To avoid a surprise in Court, and to find out what the officer wrote, the advocate should make a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request for the notes and the Assessment. Asylum Officer notes are easily available via FOIA. To obtain this information, type your request on a single piece of paper: “Give me the notes and assessment of the asylum officer.” State your name, date of birth, place of birth, address, Alien number, and sign under penalty of perjury. You do not need a lawyer; you do not need Form G-639, although you are allowed to use that form. Send your request via email to: uscis.foia@uscis.dhs.gov

In January 2020, I received the entire Asylum Officer assessment for an asylum applicant from Congo. The client and I are now more relaxed and confident about the case. We will not be surprised in Immigration Court. You can read this assessment at the FOIA page of the Louise Trauma Center.  A model FOIA request can also be found at the same page.

Continue reading

80 Comments

The Coronavirus Is Divine Punishment for Our Sins

by Jason Dzubow

There’s a long tradition in the U.S. (and around the world) of blaming minorities for natural disasters. Conveniently, the people targeted for this type of scapegoating are usually powerless, and are often already despised by the people doing the blaming. The present pandemic is no exception. A clergyman who teaches Bible classes at the White House recently posted a piece, asking in response to the coronavirus, Is G-d Judging America Today? The predictable answer is yes, and the predictable reason is related to “sins” such as “environmentalism” (gasp!) and “homosexuality” (double gasp!). 

But how do we know which sins result in divine punishment? And what communal penalty is appropriate for a particular sin? Was 9-11 heavenly retribution for abortion (per Jerry Falwell)? Did Hurricane Katrina devastate New Orleans in retaliation for that city’s support of a gay pride parade (John Hagee)? And was Hurricane Harvey sent to drown Houston because it elected a lesbian mayor (Kevin Swanson)?

I’m not normally a fan of attributing natural disasters to human sins, but since it’s Passover–a holiday where we remember ten plagues visited upon the Egyptians for enslaving Jews–I thought I might give the whole “divine retribution” thing a try.

A group of Bible scholars protests the government’s treatment of asylum seekers.

And now that I think about it, the idea that G-d is punishing us with a virus doesn’t seem all that far fetched. After all, the Egyptians suffered boils, so there is obviously precedent for sending a disease to smite wrongdoers. But which sin would trigger a coronavirus pandemic? Certainly not the “sin” of homosexuality. That causes hurricanes. Obviously.

When you look at what’s happening in our country and the world, it seems pretty clear which sin is responsible for our current troubles–the sin of xenophobia. What’s that you say? You object? You say that xenophobia is not a sin? Let’s take a look at our handy Bible to learn more–

Exodus 12:49 – There shall be one law for the citizen and for the stranger who dwells among you.

Exodus 22:20 – You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Leviticus 19:33-34 – When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Numbers 15:14-16 – There shall be one law for you and for the resident stranger; it shall be a law for all time throughout the ages. You and the stranger shall be alike before the Lord; the same ritual and the same rule shall apply to you and to the stranger who resides among you.

Deuteronomy 27:19 – Cursed be he who subverts the rights of the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow.

Etc., etc., etc. You get the idea. We are commanded–repeatedly–to treat the stranger as we treat the citizen. Those who mistreat the stranger will be cursed. So the Biblical foundation for our current troubles is clear.

But as our President loves to point out, the coronavirus began in China. Are they guilty of xenophobia? Indeed. Not long after Xi Jinping came to power in 2012, the Chinese government started implementing a series of increasingly restrictive measures against the Uyghur ethnic minority. These include forcing as many as one million men, women, and children into “re-education” camps in order to change their political and religious thinking to be more aligned with Communist Party ideology. To students of the Passover story, the persecution of the Uyghurs sounds eerily familiar–

Exodus 1:8-10 – A new king arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph [a leader among the Israelites]. And [the king] said to his people, “Look, the Israelite people are much too numerous for us. Let us deal shrewdly with them, so that they may not increase; otherwise in the event of war they may join our enemies in fighting against us and rise from the ground.”

And so the pharaoh enslaved the Jews. The rest, as they say, is history.

What about the United States? We are now the epicenter of the disease. Why are we being subject to G-d’s wrath? The obvious answer is that we have failed to treat citizens and strangers in a like manner. We have wronged the strangers who live among us. How?

Even before President Trump came to power, our country treated non-citizens and citizens differently. There are good reasons for doing so, of course: National security, preserving the welfare state, assimilating new arrivals in an orderly way. But some of the differences seemed less-well grounded in sound public policy: Mass immigration raids, private prisons, limited due process. Since President Trump’s ascension, though, our immigration policies have been driven by lies and xenophobia: Separation of children from parents, dramatically reduced protections for certain asylum seekers (particularly women fleeing domestic violence), the Muslim ban, the virtual elimination of due process at the Southern border, the draconian and nonsensical public charge rule, expansion of expedited removal, and on and on. We’ve also been subject to plenty of lies about non-citizens: Asylum seekers are rapists, criminals, and fraudsters, refugees burden our economy, Mexico will pay for the wall. Not to mention the coddling of white supremacists in Charlottesville and elsewhere. All this has resulted in a terrifying and inhospitable environment for non-citizens in the U.S. today.

Thus, it’s painfully obvious that we as a nation are failing to love the stranger as we love ourselves (Leviticus 19:34), that we are wronging and oppressing the stranger (Exodus 22:20), and that we have different laws for the stranger and the citizen (Numbers 15:14). Given all this, it’s not surprising that we have been cursed (Deuteronomy 27:19). The coronavirus is the manifestation of this curse; it is divine wrath for our sin of xenophobia. I suggest we put on sack cloth and self-quarantine for two weeks to repent.

Of course, I don’t really believe that the pandemic is divine retribution for the sin of xenophobia (or for any other sin). However, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that our mistreatment of “the other” is making things worse. Why do certain Immigration Courts remain open, forcing non-citizens and everyone involved in the system to risk their health? Why are we continuing to detain asylum seekers in unsafe conditions, even those who do not pose a danger to the community? Why do we deny economic relief to some immigrants (health care workers, agricultural workers, service industry employees) who are on the front line of the fight against the disease and who are working to keep the rest of us safe and fed?

As I see it, there is great wisdom in the words of the Bible, which make clear that we are all in this together. We will succeed or fail against the disease not as citizens and strangers, but as people, united in our common effort. The coronavirus does not discriminate based on nationality or race. Neither should we.

Continue reading

102 Comments