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

Some Asylum Seekers Will Qualify for a Stimulus Payment

by Jason Dzubow

In response to the economic disaster caused by the coronavirus pandemic, Congress has passed a $2.2 trillion aid package. Part of that package includes direct payments to individuals. Most U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents will receive a payment, but what about asylum seekers and asylees?

First, for all potential beneficiaries, the payment is dependent on your income. From the Washington Post—

Individuals with adjusted gross incomes up to $75,000 a year will be eligible for the full $1,200 check. Reduced checks will go out to individuals making up to $99,000 a year (the payment amount falls by $5 for every $100 in income above $75,000).

Married couples are eligible for a $2,400 check as long as their adjusted gross income is under $150,000 a year. Reduced checks, on a sliding scale, will go out to married couples who earn up to $198,000. Married couples also will receive an additional $500 for every child under 17.

People who file as a “head of household” (typically single parents with children) are eligible for a $1,200 check if they have an adjusted gross income up to $112,500 a year. Reduced checks on a sliding scale are available for heads of household earning up to $136,500 annually. Heads of household will also receive an additional $500 per child under 17.

You can calculate how much you and your family will receive here.

“Imagine how much TP I could buy with $1,200.00!”

Second, assuming you qualify for the payment based on your income, you must also have a valid Social Security number. For married couples, it seems that both spouses must have SSNs. According to the Tax Policy Center, “If one spouse has an SSN, but the other does not, the couple is ineligible for the payment (there is an exception for military families).”

Third, you would have had to file taxes for 2018 or 2019. If you did not file, you are ineligible for the payment. However, if you were not required to file taxes in those years, you can now file a “simple tax return” in order to establish your eligibility for the payment (presumably, this means filing the IRS form 1040 or the 1040-SR if you are over 65 years old). For those who should have filed taxes in 2018 or 2019, but failed to file, you can file now and still qualify for the payment. The IRS urges people who file to include direct deposit banking information on their tax return, in order to facilitate the payment.

Also, if you need help with issues related to back taxes and filing, you may be able to get assistance from your local Low Income Tax Clinic (many of which are apparently still operating in some capacity through the pandemic).

Fourth, to qualify for the payment, you must be a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident (i.e., a Green Card holder) (though some LPRs who have spent significant time outside the U.S. might not qualify for the payment). Others who reside lawfully in the U.S., such as asylees and asylum seekers, may also be eligible for the payment, as long as they are not “nonresident aliens,” as defined (in a very confusing manner) by the IRS. According to the Internal Revenue Service—

An alien is any individual who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national. A nonresident alien is an alien who has not passed the green card test or the substantial presence test.

The Green Card Test states that an LPR is considered a resident of the United States for tax purposes (and is thus eligible for the stimulus payment) as long as he or she spent at least one day in the U.S. during the relevant tax year.

The Substantial Presence Test is a little trickier. For that, you need to have at least 31 days in the United States during the current year and 183 days in the U.S. during the three-year period that includes the current year and the two years immediately before that. However, when counting towards the 183 days, days in prior years count for less, according to the following formula—

A. Current year days in United States x 1 =_____days

B. First preceding year days in United States x 1/3 =_____days

C. Second preceding year days in United States x 1/6 =_____days

D. Total Days in United States =_____days (add lines A, B, and C)

If line D equals or exceeds 183 days, you have passed the183-day test.

So for example, let’s say you were physically present in the U.S. for 120 days in each of the years 2017, 2018, and 2019. To determine if you meet the substantial presence test for 2019, count the full 120 days of presence in 2019, 40 days in 2018 (1/3 of 120), and 20 days in 2017 (1/6 of 120). Since the total for the three-year period is 180 days, you are not considered a resident under the substantial presence test for 2019, and would likely not qualify for the stimulus payment. A word of caution here: I am not a tax lawyer (thankfully) and so there may be arguments to make here in order to qualify for the payment. If you do not receive the payment and feel you should have, you may want to seek help from a tax professional.

My sense from all this is that asylees and asylum seekers who have been here and paid taxes in 2018 and/or 2019 will likely qualify for the payment (unless they have spent substantial time outside the U.S., which is rare for such people). Asylum seekers and asylees who have been in the U.S. for a shorter period of time, or who did not have a work permit until recently (or who did not yet get a work permit) will likely not qualify for the payment.

If you do qualify, you should not have to do anything to receive the payment–it should be credited to your account or mailed directly to you. Some people–such as those who did not pay taxes in 2018 or 2019–may need to take action, as discussed above. Also, the IRS has created a webpage to provide updates and information about the stimulus payments. At present, the webpage is pretty sparse, but the IRS says it will be updated with additional information soon.

One final point, asylees and asylum seekers are not subject to the “public charge” rules that went into effect in February. Therefore, receiving this payment (or any other type of assistance, including unemployment benefits or means-tested aid) will have no effect on an asylum case, or on an asylee’s application for a Green Card. For non-asylees, it seems pretty clear that the stimulus payment and unemployment benefits would not impact the public charge analysis. Other types of benefits could create a public charge issue (again, this is for people who are not asylees or asylum seekers). Talk to a lawyer if you are not sure or need help with this.

To say the least, these are difficult times for everyone. But the situation is particularly hard on those who are most vulnerable, including many immigrants and asylum seekers. I hope that the stimulus program will provide help to those most in need, and that we will see better days ahead soon.

Continue reading

157 Comments

Incompetence and Reckless at EOIR Endanger Lives

by Jason Dzubow

The coronavirus is causing unprecedented disruptions to nearly every area of life, and the Immigration Courts are no exception. The courts were already in a post-apocalyptic era, with over one million cases in the backlog, and now the situation has been thrown into near total chaos. The fundamental problem is that EOIR–the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the office that oversees Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals–is determined to continue adjudicating cases, even if that means risking the lives of its own employees; not to mention the lives of respondents, witnesses, and lawyers (and anyone who comes into contact with them).

EOIR is closing and re-opening various courts seemingly at random, often times with an after-hours Tweet, such as one last night at 9:23 PM, declaring that the Newark and Seattle Immigration Courts will reopen today for purposes of accepting filings and litigating detained cases (non-detained cases through April 10, 2020 have been postponed). In reaction to this latest news, Susan G. Roy, an attorney and former Immigration Judge (and my friend from law school – Hi Sue!) wrote last night–

NJ has the second highest number of corona virus cases in the nation, second only to NY. The Newark Immigration Court was closed because someone tested positive for the virus. Now a DHS attorney is fighting for his life in ICU, another attorney is very ill, and an interpreter has tested positive. These are the ones we know about. The Court was set to reopen on April 12. That is a reasonable time to ensure that everyone is safe and that the risk of transmission is limited. How is it even remotely reasonable to decide to open TOMORROW? Even if it is only for filings, court staff and others will be forced to violate the Governor’s Executive Order [directing all residents to stay at home], put themselves at great risk, and risk contaminating others, while many people who work in the same building remain under mandatory quarantine. You are ruthlessly jeopardizing the lives of your own employees, not to mention the public, for no legitimate reason.

There’s a new dress code at the Boston Immigration Court (and yes, this photo really is from the Boston Immigration Court).

And it’s not just advocates who are upset about EOIR’s decision-making. The National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ” – the judges’ union) and ICE attorneys are also reacting with anger. In response to EOIR’s tweet reopening the courts in Seattle and Newark, NAIJ responds, “Putting our lives at risk, one Tweet at a time.” And Fanny Behar-Ostrow, an ICE prosecutor and president of AFGE Local 511, says of EOIR: “It’s like insanity has taken over the agency,“

The gravity of keeping courts open is reflected in one incident, described in a recent letter from the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys in New York–

One of our members recently had a detained master calendar hearing scheduled for this past Friday, March 20, at the Varick St. Court. In order to prepare the bond application and for the master, the attorney and his staff met with the client‘s mother. A request for a bond hearing, together with the required relief applications, and a request for a telephonic hearing, were hand delivered to the Court at noon on Wednesday March 18th, 2020. The attorney did not receive any response to the motion for a telephonic hearing, and repeated calls to the court that day and the next went unanswered. To ensure that the Court was aware of the request, the client‘s mother retrieved from the attorney‘s office, Thursday evening, a letter to the court confirming the request for a telephonic hearing. She traveled to the court in Manhattan, from Long Island, and delivered the letter to the Clerk, and thereafter waited in the waiting area with family members of other detainees and other attorneys who were compelled to appear. 

Today we received confirmation the client‘s mother has been diagnosed with COVID–19 virus, through medical testing. Can you imagine the number of people she came into contact with as the result of the decision to keep this court open? In addition to exposing the attorney and office staff, she traveled from her home on Long Island, on the Long Island Railroad, to Penn Station, from there to the subway and ultimately to the Court. Undoubtedly she came into contact with, and exposed, countless numbers of people, who in turn exposed countless others. 

Anyone with a basic grasp of the fundamental principles of epidemiology – easily garnered from watching CNN or the local evening news – understands how easily this virus spreads. Given this, the decision to continue to keep the courts open can only be construed as a conscious decision on the part of EOIR to subject our Immigration Judges, court staff, interpreters, DHS attorneys, institutional defenders, members of the private bar, our clients, their families, and all whom they come into contact with, to an unreasonable risk of infection, serious illness and death.

NAIJ echoes this sentiment: “With [New York] the epicenter of the virus, DOJ is failing to protect its employees and the public we serve.”  

The appropriate path forward is painfully obvious. EOIR should immediately close all courts for all cases. Staff should work remotely when possible to re-set dates and adjudicate bond decisions (so non-criminal aliens who do not pose a danger to the community can be released from detention). That is the best way to protect everyone involved with the Immigration Court system and the public at large.

Finally, I think it is important to name names. The Director of EOIR is James McHenry. I have never been a fan. Mr. McHenry was profoundly unqualified for his job, having gone from supervising maybe half a dozen people in a prior position to overseeing thousands at EOIR. However, he was politically aligned with the goals of the Trump Administration and he got the job. I have previously described the functioning of the agency during Mr. McHenry’s tenure as maliciousness tempered by incompetence. But these days, it is more like maliciousness exacerbated by incompetence. And in the current crisis, incompetence can be deadly. It’s time for Mr. McHenry and EOIR to do the right thing: Close the courts now.

Continue reading

81 Comments

The Asylum Seekers’ Guide to Surviving Coronavirus

by Jason Dzubow

The current pandemic is unprecedented in modern American history. Maybe the closest analog is the influenza epidemic at the end of World War I. My grandmother was hospitalized during that affair–in 1919, when she was just six years old–and I remember a story she told me about looking out the window and watching nurses walk up and down the alleyway with soldiers who had been blinded by mustard gas during the war.

Our society has changed a lot since those antediluvian days, but fear, uncertainty, and misinformation seem as pervasive today as in accounts of those earlier times. For me, I draw inspiration from my grandmother, Evelyn Weiss, who lived to be 92. I also feel inspired by my asylum-seeker clients, many of whom have lived through difficult, dangerous, and stressful times, and gone on to build meaningful and successful lives.

For most of us, I daresay, this is a confusing and frightening time. But for non-citizens living in the U.S., far from their support systems and possibly with limited English, I imagine the situation is even more challenging. This is particularly true for people with pending cases, whose status in the U.S. is not secure.

A couple weeks at home with my family. What could go wrong?

Here, I want to provide some resources for asylum seekers and other non-citizens who are navigating life in the age of coronavirus. One word of caution–the situation with regards to the virus and the government’s response is rapidly evolving. For that reason, rather than post much about what is happening now (information that likely will be stale in a few hours), I have focused below on providing links to government websites and other resources, which may be of use. So check those pages, as they should provide up-to-date information about the ongoing crisis.

Immigration Court Cases: As of late last night, all non-detained hearings have been canceled through April 10, 2020. When those cases will be rescheduled, we do not know.

If you have a case scheduled after April 10, 2020, you can check whether your hearing will go forward online or by calling 800-898-7180 and entering your Alien number on the phone keypad. You can also check whether particular courts are closed or partially closed, here. If you are still unsure, you can call the court directly and try to talk to a clerk (this is not always easy). 

For detained cases or cases scheduled after April 10, 2020, you may be able to postpone your hearing, if necessary. To do that, you (or hopefully, your lawyer) would file a motion for a continuance. Normally, this is a burdensome and uncertain process, though presumably if the emergency persists, most Judges will be flexible about honoring such requests (though not all Judges are so cooperative).

If you are without an attorney and you need help with your case, there may be pro bono (free) assistance available. I wrote about that here. 

If you are interested in learning about the dangers facing detained asylum seekers (most of who have no criminal issues), here is a good piece from NPR.

Asylum Office Cases: As of this writing, Asylum Offices will be closed to the public until at least April 1, 2020. For interviews scheduled before that time, applicants will receive a cancellation notice, and the case should be rescheduled once normal operations resume (in normal times, rescheduled cases are given the highest priority for a new interview date, but I have not seen an announcement about how rescheduled cases will be handled during the emergency). In addition, there will be no in-person decision pick-ups. Instead, all decisions will be mailed out (so make sure that if you move, you update your address). If you need to inquire about your case status, you can do so by email–you can find the appropriate email address here. For any communication with the Asylum Office, make sure to include your name and Alien number. If you plan to submit additional evidence for a case, it is probably best to wait until normal operations resume, but if you must submit evidence, do so by mail (you can find the mailing addresses for the various offices here, but be careful, as some offices have different mailing and physical addresses).

Aside from in-person appointments, USCIS is making an effort to continue normal operations, and so presumably, you can still file new asylum cases and receive receipts (but biometric appointments are not currently being scheduled). Also, if you are eligible to apply for a work permit based on a pending asylum case, you should be able to do so.

Once normal operations resume, note that the Asylum Offices have a liberal postponement policy, and you are urged to postpone your interview if you do not feel well or you believe you might have been exposed to coronavirus. At least for the time being, there is no penalty for postponing a scheduled asylum interview, and it will not stop the clock for purposes of work authorization.

Other USCIS Cases: All in-person appointments with USCIS are canceled until at least April 1, 2020. This includes interviews, biometric appointments, and naturalization oath ceremonies. However, USCIS is still operating, and so you can file new cases and receive receipts.

Once normal operations resume, you can cancel your appointment if that is necessary. For more information about canceling an appointment, see this link. USCIS states that there is no penalty for rescheduling, though we do not know the time frame for when cases might be rescheduled.

ICE Check-ins: For those required to check-in with ICE, the agency indicates that you should contact your local field office prior to your appointment. You can find that contact info here. It seems that different offices have different policies, and unless you can confirm in advance that reporting is not necessary, it is best to appear for any appointment. Hopefully, ICE will issue more useful guidance soon, as it is difficult to communicate with field offices, and they are endangering people (including their own workers) by failing to create a coherent plan.

Traveling Outside the United States: Advance Parole (“AP”) is a way for people with pending asylum cases to travel overseas and then return to the U.S. (I wrote about it here). Given the pandemic, you probably can’t get a flight out of the U.S. anyway, but if you can, it is probably a bad idea to travel with AP. Given the restrictions currently in place blocking people who have traveled through China, Iran, and the Schengen area, if you leave the U.S. with AP, you face the real possibility of being unable to return. If you are prevented from returning and your AP expires, there may be no way back to the country (except to apply for a new visa, and you know how hard that is).

For people who have asylum, you can get a Refugee Travel Document (“RTD”), which allows you to leave the U.S. and return. However, as I read the travel restrictions, I do not feel confident that people with an RTD will necessarily be able to return to the United States if they are coming from an affected area. There are exceptions to the travel restrictions–for U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and several other categories of people–but there is no specific exception for asylees or refugees with an RTD. While it makes sense that such people can return to the United States, this Administration has taken a very hard line towards non-citizens, and without an explicit exception to the restriction, I think you have to be extremely cautious about leaving the country at this time, even with a valid RTD.

Healthcare: Healthcare for people without legal status in the U.S. has always been a challenge, but now the situation has become critical. If any one of us cannot get the health care we need, all of us are potentially affected. The fact is, there are resources available to everyone, even people who are not in lawful status or who have pending cases. If you need to find a health clinic, the National Association of Free and Charitable Clinics is a good place to start. On their website, you can find medical clinics based on your zip code. On a longer term basis, certain non-citizens–including asylum applicants–might be able to qualify for government-subsidized health insurance.

If you think you may have coronavirus, you can contact a government-funded health center. Such centers serve everyone, regardless of immigration status, and provide reduced-fee or free healthcare services. You can search here by zip code to find a health center near you.

If necessary, you can also go for help to the emergency room of your local hospital. From the National Immigration Law Center website–

Under federal law, hospitals with emergency rooms must screen and treat people who need emergency medical services regardless of whether they have insurance, how much money they have, or their immigration status. Similarly, anyone can seek primary and preventive health care at community health centers regardless of whether they are insured, their ability to pay, or their immigration status.

The NILC website has a list of additional resources for non-citizens in need of healthcare or assistance. Finally, the Center for Disease Control has advice about what to do if you are sick and about how to protect yourself from getting sick in the first place.

Unemployment Insurance and Other Assistance: If you are legally authorized to work and you lose your job, you may be eligible for unemployment insurance. Details about obtaining unemployment insurance vary by state, and you can learn more here. The federal government also provides helpful information about unemployment insurance.

In addition, some non-citizens may be eligible for other benefits, such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program), nonemergency Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). You can learn more about the legal requirements for such benefits here. To get help obtaining such aid, you might start by reaching out to a local non-profit that assists immigrants. Such organizations might be able to point you in the right direction.

Staying Safe: I am no health expert, but given that those in the know recommend “social distancing” as a way to check the epidemic, it seems to me that (after much dithering) USCIS and EOIR made the right call to postpone in-person appointments and non-detained cases (and hopefully, ICE will follow suit). For many people waiting for their cases, this is another blow, and will be very painful. Once the crisis abates, you can try to expedite your asylum office case, your USCIS case or your court case. Until then, stay safe and if you find any toilet paper, send it my way!

Continue reading

129 Comments

New Immigration Court Online Portal: Convenient, but Not So Confidential

by Jason Dzubow

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) recently announced a new way to check case status on-line. The system provides information about cases that are (or were) pending before the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals. According to the EOIR press release–

The automated case information application allows users to receive the most recent information about a case after inputting a unique alien registration number. Available information includes next scheduled hearings, decision information at the immigration court and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) levels, and court and BIA contact information. Immigration courts’ operating statuses are also included.

The new portal can be found here. By entering your Alien number, you can view your case information in English or Spanish. This new system is similar to the old EOIR telephone hotline (which still works–you can call 800-898-7180 to obtain information about your case). The online system provides similar information to the hotline, but in written format.

Easy access to court information is great, but maybe it could be a bit less public.

Overall, I like this online system better than the telephone hotline. It is more convenient and faster to use. It also includes some helpful information that the hotline does not provide, such as better court contact information and news about court closures (at the bottom of the portal home page). That said–and I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth–I do have a few quibbles with this shiny new toy (shocking, I know).

First, and maybe most significantly, when you enter your Alien number and go to the page with information about your case, you will see your full name displayed at the top. This makes me nervous. Maybe I am old fashioned, but I don’t like seeing my asylum-seeker clients’ names displayed for all the world to see (not to mention their A-numbers and information about their cases). I worry that information like this should not be so publicly available.

To be fair, you can’t access this information without the person’s A-number, and when you call the EOIR hotline, you can obtain essentially the same information already. It’s just that having this information available in written format somehow seems less secure. Also, because the online portal is so much faster than the telephone hotline, it’s not difficult to enter one A-number after another and get information about lots of random people. This is particularly easy since A-numbers are assign sequentially. So if you know one person’s number, you can change it slightly and find other (random) people’s names and numbers. Whether this information could be used for nefarious purposes, I do not know, but given the human capacity for mischief, I imagine it is a possibility.

Perhaps a partial solution here is to provide less information about the alien–maybe just the person’s initials. Whether that would provide much protection against bad actors, I am not sure, but it seems safer than displaying the full name. Another possibility would be to require users to enter their Alien number and their name in order to access the system. This would at least make it more difficult to gain access to random people’s information. 

A second quibble is that the portal does not distinguish between removal, Withholding of Removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In each case, the decision information will indicate that the person has been denied relief (in contrast, where a person has been granted asylum or a Green Card, the system will indicate that the Immigration Judge “granted the application”). This is the same information that is provided through the telephone system. Having talked to some government techies, I know it is not always possible to obtain more specific information from existing databases, but it would be helpful to know whether a person has been denied all relief or has been granted Withholding or CAT.

A third issue is that the online system does not provide any information about the Asylum Clock. This is surprising, since the telephone hotline does give information about the clock. For some asylum applicants, it is possible to get clock information from USCIS by entering the asylum receipt number (not the Alien number) here. But given this fancy new online system, it’s too bad that clock data is not included as part of the package.

Finally, and this is perhaps an unfair criticism, it seems to me that EOIR could do a lot more with this website. For example, it could include contact information for the relevant DHS office (you can find that separately here). It could indicate whether biometrics are current. Each individual Immigration Court has its own webpage (which you can access here) with information about office hours, staff, parking, and more. It would be nice if the portal provided a link to the relevant court’s webpage. Maybe it could also include links to local pro bono resources and to the Immigration Court Practice Manual. And if we’re really ambitious, it could include information about how to submit a complaint against an adjudicator, other court personnel or an attorney. Dare to dream.

One last point–the new portal is only useful if people know that it exists. Instead of all the mumbo jumbo on the Notice to Appear and the Immigration Court scheduling order, why not include a prominent (and I mean **PROMINENT**) link to the new online system? This new system is not bad (despite my kvetching) and it would be great if more people learn about it.

These days, anything resembling a positive development in immigration world should be celebrated. EOIR’s online portal is a helpful tool for immigrants and their advocates. I hope EOIR will continue to upgrade this system to make it more secure and more useful for us all.

Continue reading

75 Comments

EOIR Proposes Huge Fee Increase

by Jason Dzubow

EOIR–the Executive Office for Immigration Review–has proposed a fee increase for applications before the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The new fees purportedly reflect the cost of adjudicating the various applications that EOIR reviews, and include the following–

  • Increase the fee for Form EOIR-26 (Notice of Appeal from a Decision of an Immigration Judge) from $110 to $975.
  • Increase the fee for Form EOIR-29 (Notice of Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals from a Decision of a DHS Officer) from $110 to $705.
  • Increase the fee for Form EOIR-40 (Application for Suspension of Deportation) from $100 to $305.
  • Increase the fee for Form EOIR-42A (Application for Cancellation of Removal for Certain Permanent Residents) from $100 to $305.
  • Increase the fee for Form EOIR-42B (Application for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain Nonpermanent Residents) from $100 to $360.
  • Increase the fee for filing a motion to reopen or reconsider with the immigration court from $110 to $145.
  • Increase the fee for filing a motion to reopen or reconsider with the BIA from $110 to $895,

Also, the new fees include a $50 fee for asylum cases filed with the Immigration Court (I wrote about this previously after USCIS proposed a similar fee for asylum cases filed with that agency).

EOIR hopes to revive the tradition of paying your executioner.

As you can see, the new fees are significantly higher than the current fees. EOIR Director James McHenry justifies the fee increase as follows–

The proposed fee increases are marginal in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars and would mitigate the significant taxpayer subsidization of these forms and motions. EOIR is long past due for a review of its fee-based filings, especially as its caseload and costs have increased substantially since 1986.

As usual, Mr. McHenry’s comments reflect his lack of compassion for vulnerable immigrants, not to mention his tenuous grasp of reality. A 900% fee increase for BIA appeals is certainly not “marginal,” and will likely preclude many people from exercising their right to due process of law. Sadly, though, the rights of immigrants have never been a priority or a concern for Mr. McHenry, at least as far as I can tell, and so his comments are hardly surprising.

Now, to be fair, EOIR has not increased fees for 30 years, and so a review of current fees is overdue, and a reasonable fee increase could certainly be justified. Let’s take, for example, the most impactful of the new fees, the fee to appeal an Immigration Court decision to the BIA. The current fee is $110. According to EOIR, had this fee been adjusted for inflation (starting in 1986), it would be $252.63 in today’s dollars. So in that sense, the current fee is less than it should be (whatever that means). The new proposed fee of $975 is nearly nine times the current fee, but “only” about four times the adjusted-for-inflation fee.

Also, a fee waiver may be available for those who need it, using form EOIR-26A. This form (at least in its current iteration) is fairly simple, and seeks information about the applicant’s income and expenses. It’s not clear how much evidence is needed to support the contentions in the form, but given the wide latitude of adjudicators to grant or deny a fee waiver, it seems to me that the wise applicant will include significant supporting evidence (which may require a lot of work). Pursuant to the regulations, EOIR has the “discretion” to grant a fee waiver. However, the regulations also indicate that, “if the fee waiver request does not establish the inability to pay the required fee, the appeal or motion will not be deemed properly filed.” Does this mean that an appeal filed along with a fee waiver will be rejected if the fee waiver is denied? Will EOIR provide some type of notice, so that applicants can raise the fee and pay for their appeal? How much time will EOIR allow to pay the fee? It’s hard to be optimistic about any of this, given that the whopping new fees seem purposely designed to dissuade applicants from pursuing their rights before the Immigration Courts and the BIA.

Finally, EOIR’s main justification for the new fees is that costs for the agency have increased, and raising fees will help cover EOIR’s expenses and protect tax payers–to the tune of about $45 million per year. To come up with their numbers, EOIR completed a study where they looked at who adjudicates the various applications, how long it takes, and how much it costs (taking into account salaries, but not other expenses such as overhead or employee benefits). How accurate is this study? I have no idea. Different appeals, for example, require very different amounts of work. Some appeals are simple; others are complicated. But even assuming the new fees accurately reflect EOIR’s expenses, I think that fee increases of this magnitude are unfair for two main reasons.

First, EOIR’s justification for these fees is a con job. They talk about the expenses of immigrants, but not the contributions of immigrants to our society. The Trump Administration tried this trick at least once before, when it suppressed a study showing that refugees contribute more to our economy than they take, and instead released a distorted study, listing only the costs of helping refugees. You simply can’t separate out the costs of maintaining an immigration system from the benefits we as a nation derive from that system. Yet that is what EOIR is doing here: Director McHenry decries the expenses to the system, but we learn nothing about how immigrants contribute to our economy (and the weight of the evidence indicates that immigration benefits our economy).

Second, in its mission statement, EOIR indicates that it “is committed to providing fair, expeditious, and uniform application of the nation’s immigration laws in all cases.” How can it fulfill this mission if the people before the Immigration Courts and the BIA cannot afford the relief to which they are entitled? To have a functioning legal system, people in our country need access to courts–civil courts, criminal courts, and immigration courts, among others. Our’s is not (and should not be) a nation where you receive only the justice you can afford. Non-citizens who live in our country should not be an exception to this rule. Or, as the indefatigable Paul Wickham Schmidt writes—

Correcting errors on appeal is probably one of the most important functions the Government performs. That’s particularly true when the public segment “served” is generally limited income individuals and the getting results correct could be “life determining.”

At this stage, the new fees are proposed, but not yet in effect. The public can submit comments about the proposal, and perhaps that will cause EOIR to modify its plan. To submit comments, see page 2 of the proposed rule.

Make no mistake, these proposed fees are another attack on immigrants, justified with half truths, and implemented because immigrants are too vulnerable to fight back. All people of good conscience should continue to resist these terrible policies, which directly impact our non-citizen neighbors, but which, in the end, harm us all. 

Continue reading

113 Comments

On Luck

by Jason Dzubow

For years, practitioners and academics have complained about inconsistent decisions at the Asylum Offices and the Immigration Courts, and there’s plenty of data to back up this concern. Recently, two sets of cases in my office brought this problem home, and illustrated how luck impacts who receives protection in the U.S. and who does not.

The first set of cases involves two siblings whose uncle was a well-known member of the political opposition. As a result of the uncle’s activities in the early 2000’s, his siblings–including my clients’ father–were all arrested and held in jail for years. Thus, for a good portion of their childhood, my clients grew up without their father. After he was released, the father resumed his life and his children (my clients) eventually came to the United States to study. While they were here, the father was re-arrested for seemingly pretextual reasons. Fearing for their own safety, the siblings filed for asylum. Both cases were referred to Immigration Court, and the siblings hired me for their cases. As far as I could tell, the cases were exactly the same. Neither sibling had engaged in political activity; both cases were based on the relationship with their high-profile uncle and the home government’s persecution of the entire family. Also, we submitted the same evidence in each case and both applicants were found credible. The only difference between the two cases is that the siblings had different Immigration Judges. The first case was before a judge with a 62% denial rate and the second case was before a judge with a 91% denial rate (according to TRAC Immigration). We won the first case and DHS did not appeal,. So in a sense, the second case was different in that one sibling had already been granted asylum. Unfortunately, that was not enough. DHS opposed asylum in the second case (even though they had not appealed the grant in the first case) and the IJ denied relief. The case is currently on appeal.

Sometimes, it may make sense to try to change venue.

The second set of cases involves members of a religious minority who faced persecution by their government and by extremists in their country. These cases were before the Asylum Office. The lead applicants were all related, either as siblings or in-laws, they were members of the same congregation back home, and they faced mostly the same persecution. Also, we submitted similar evidence in each case and all the applicants were deemed credible. Out of four cases in 2019 and 2020, we received three grants and one denial. The main difference between the four lead applicants was that the person who was denied had the strongest case due to past imprisonment in his country. Also, the denied case was the most recent decision, and so we had informed the Asylum Office that other family members were granted asylum on basically the same facts. In the denied case, the Asylum Office found that the applicant suffered past persecution, but found that country conditions had changed, such that the situation was now safe. It seems odd that the Asylum Office would find changed country conditions in one case, but not the others. The referred case is now before an Immigration Court.

So here we have two situations where the applicants presented nearly identical cases, but received different results. Why did this happen? As far as I can tell, the reason is luck: Some adjudicators are more likely to grant asylum than others, and this gives us inconsistent results. Also, some adjudicators seem to be inconsistent from one case to the next, in that their mood at a given moment may influence their decision. And so, the outcome of a case is dependent–at least in part–on the luck of the draw.

This is obviously not a good thing. While I agree with former Chief Immigration Judge MaryBeth Keller that we “don’t want decisions on asylum made according to mathematical formulas as if by computers,” I do think disparities are a serious problem, which should be addressed at the policy level. But what can individuals do about the problem of luck in asylum cases?

In thinking about this question, I am reminded of Reinhold Niebuhr’s Serenity Prayer–

G-d, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

But how do we know what we can change? Some things are obvious: We can gather the evidence needed for a case, make an appropriate legal argument, try to weed out inconsistencies, prepare testimony beforehand, dress appropriately for court, etc. For those who can afford it, having a competent attorney can make a big difference. For those who cannot afford legal help, securing pro bono (free) assistance is important (though finding pro bono help is often not easy).

Some things are harder to control. For Immigration Court, it is possible to get an idea about the asylum grant rate for your particular judge (for newer judges, data may not be available). If you find your judge has a particularly high denial rate, you might consider moving to a new jurisdiction in order to change venue to a different court, where you will hopefully get a better judge. I rarely recommend this option to my clients, as moving is largely a crap shoot–the IJ may refuse to transfer the case, you may end up with a worse judge despite the move (and a judge who may be “bad” for most applicants might be “good” for certain types of cases), and you may substantially delay the case. Also, of course, moving to a new state is disruptive and expensive. Despite all this, if you have a particularly difficult judge, it may make sense to try to move the case.

Forum shopping is even less useful for cases at the Asylum Office. While there is some data about the overall grant rates for the different offices, there is no information available about the individual Asylum Officers. Even if such data existed, it would be of little value, since you won’t know who your Officer is until the day of the interview, when it is too late to switch. While it is possible to move to a jurisdiction with an “easier” Asylum Office, given all the variables, this often makes little sense. On the other hand, if you have the flexibility to live anywhere, why not live somewhere with a good Asylum Office?

For the most part, then, you are stuck with your adjudicator, but you have a fair bit of control over the case you present. In my experience, it is more productive to focus on the case itself, rather than worry about who will decide that case. In the end, the absence of control is a fact of life for asylum seekers and for us all. Perhaps a quote from another of my favorite theologian–Saint Augustine–provides an appropriate conclusion here: Pray as though everything depends on G-d. Work as though everything depends on you. At least in this way, you cover all your bases.

Continue reading

87 Comments

The All-or-Nothing Problem

by Jason Dzubow

The debate over immigration–legal and illegal–has become more divisive and seemingly more intractable in the face of the current Administration’s hard-line policies. In a democracy, ideally, people with different views about immigration would talk to each other and reach some type of compromise solution. That is difficult with any issue, but it is particularly problematic when it comes to immigration. There are many reasons for this, but for me, one reason stands out: Immigration is an all-or-nothing proposition.

What I mean is, under the immigration law, either a person gets to stay in the U.S. or they get deported. There is no middle ground. Contrast this with the criminal law. If a person robs a bank, for example, there are a wide range of responses available under our system of justice. The person could be sentenced to jail (for a short time or a long time), or fined (a lot or a little), or given probation. Perhaps the bank robber is a good candidate for rehabilitation and can be placed into a program to obtain appropriate services. In short, a criminal judge has many options, and can–theoretically–tailor a solution to fit the particular circumstances of the case. Immigration Judges have far fewer options.

When a person is placed into Immigration Court, it is for one reason: The U.S. government believes that the person should be deported from the United States. The charging document, called a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), lists the reason(s) why the “respondent” (the non-citizen) can be deported. If you look at the allegations in a typical NTA, you will see: (1) You are not a citizen or national of the United States; (2) You are a citizen and national of country X; (3) You entered the United States on a particular date with a particular visa (or without a visa); (4) You overstayed your visa and no longer have permission to remain in the U.S., or you committed some act (such as a crime) that makes you ineligible to remain in the United States. Sometimes, respondents deny the allegations. Maybe the government got it wrong. Maybe the person is not deportable. Usually, though, the allegations in the NTA are correct, and the respondent concedes removablity, and proffers some type of defense to being removed. Common defenses include asylum, Withholding of Removal, relief under the Torture Convention, Cancellation of Removal, and adjustment of status. There are also other, less common, options. At the end of the day, the respondent will either be granted relief based on one of these defenses, or he will be ordered to leave the United States.

Making a reasonable argument in the immigration debate is like bringing a flower to a gun fight.

Under this legal regime, there is basically no opportunity for compromise. The respondent wins everything or loses everything. One exception (sort of) is the asylum applicant who receives the “lesser relief” of Withholding of Removal or protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). An applicant will receive “lesser relief” where she is ineligible for asylum. Committing a crime could render a person ineligible. So could missing the asylum-filing deadline. Asylum is the better form of relief, since asylees can bring immediate family members to the U.S., can travel, and can eventually get their green cards and become U.S. citizens. People who receive Withholding or CAT can stay in the country with a work permit, but they cannot bring their family members here, travel or obtain their green cards or citizenship. This type of “compromise” (if it can be called that) leaves the respondent in a strange limbo: Here, but not here. Unable to feel secure in their status or stable and safe in the U.S. It also seems unfair, at least to me, to “punish” asylum seekers with lesser relief when their only mistake was to file late for asylum. Why should such people be treated the same way as criminals under the asylum law? So for me, if “lesser relief” in an asylum case is a compromise, it is a poorly thought out compromise, which has little basis in equity or justice.

I wonder if there could be another model. Is there a moral middle ground that allows qualified respondents to stay and feel secure here, but that does not completely ignore past immigration misdeeds? In other words, is there a way to satisfy Americans who don’t want the government to grant amnesty to law-breakers, but at the same time, to provide a viable path for respondents seeking relief in Immigration Court?

One could argue–convincingly in my opinion–that the existing immigration system does not give immigrants a pass, even if they do receive relief. For one thing, it’s not cheap to obtain a green card or citizenship ($1,225 and $725, respectively, if you only consider direct fees to the government). Also, most immigration applications (with USCIS or with the Immigration Court) take a long time. If you do receive relief and then want your family members to join you here, that process will usually take additional years. So even in the best case, immigration to the U.S. is not easy and not cheap.

Although respondents pay a price (in money and time), the current immigration system does not provide the type of flexibility available to judges in criminal or civil cases. So what can be done?

One possibility is to impose fines on respondents who violate the immigration law. If relief is granted, the Immigration Judge can determine whether a law was broken, and if so, whether a fine is appropriate, and how much. Relief would then be conditioned on completing payment of the fine. Of course, a major criticism of fines (in civil and criminal cases) is that they are a tax on the poor, and that they prevent people from achieving financial stability. In the asylum context, fines would likely be inappropriate, since it is perfectly lawful for anyone–even people who do not have permission to enter the country–to seek asylum. But in other contexts, fines might make sense.

Another possibility is to impose a waiting or probationary period on people who are granted relief. This already happens in certain cases (and indeed, the green card itself might be viewed as a type of probation, since it can be lost for not following the rules). For example, there are only a limited number of green cards available through Cancellation of Removal, and so if such relief is granted, the applicant usually has to wait (for a year or two) before a green card is available. This is akin to “waiting your turn,” which seems so important to people concerned about immigrants “jumping the line.”

Finally, in some cases, it may be appropriate to impose certain conditions on people who receive relief in court. For example, if an applicant has a prior conviction for DUI, perhaps the Judge could require the applicant to attend AA meetings or complete community service. For people with other criminal issues, maybe anger management classes would be appropriate. In some cases, maybe English classes or job training would be important. Final relief could be contingent on fulfilling your court-imposed obligations.

All these ideas are imperfect and preliminary. Perhaps it’s a fool’s errand to try to satisfy those who oppose “amnesty” for non-citizens. Maybe the lesson of the Trump Administration is that policy is made by imposing our ideas on others and eschewing compromise. Maybe. But for me, I still have hope that we can reach a point where civil discourse and reasonable compromise are possible. And certainly, as the political landscape continues to change (hopefully, at some point, for the better), we should be thinking about ways to re-work our immigration system so that more Americans have a stake in that system and feel that it serves their needs. Giving Immigration Judges more flexibility may be one path towards that goal.

Continue reading

136 Comments

New Data Shows that Most (But Not All) Asylum Offices Are Getting Tougher

by Jason Dzubow

Last fall, the Asylum Division cancelled its quarterly stakeholder engagement meeting and postponed the release of data about the various Asylum Offices. Now, finally, that information has been released. The news is generally bad (who would have guessed?), but the data contains some bright spots and surprises–as well as a few mysteries. Here, we’ll take a look at the most recent news from our nation’s Asylum Offices.

First, the data. The Asylum Division has released statistics for FY2019, which ended on September 30, 2019. The data shows that despite the Trump Administration’s hostility towards asylum seekers, many people continue to seek protection in the United States–through the fiscal year, a total of 82,807 new affirmative asylum applications were filed (and remember that some of these cases include dependents, so I imagine the total number of people filing for asylum in FY2019 is well over 100,000). Case completions are still not keeping up with new filings, and the overall asylum backlog continues to grow: From 323,389 at the beginning of the fiscal year, to 339,836 at the end. Throughout the year, the number one source country for new asylum cases was Venezuela. China was number two for most of the year, followed by Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Mexico.

In terms of grant rates, the news is fairly negative, but not uniformly so. As an arbitrary base-line, I will use a post I did in February 2016 about Asylum Office data from the second half of FY2015 (April to September 2015). I calculated the percentage of cases granted at each Asylum Office. In crunching the numbers, I discounted cases that were denied because the applicant failed to appear for an interview, but I included cases that were denied solely because the applicant failed to meet the one-year asylum filing deadline. I’ve made the same calculations for the period April to September 2019, and compared the grant rates for both time periods in the chart below. 

Whenever a lawyer does math: Beware!

As I mentioned, I did not include “no shows” in my data. For this reason, government statistics about the asylum grant rate will be lower than my numbers, since they include people who failed to appear for their interviews. If I had included “no-shows,” the FY2019 grant rate in Arlington would be only 19.5% (instead of 26.5%, as shown in the chart). The New York grant rate would drop to a paltry 7.1%, and the grant rate in San Francisco–the “best” asylum office–would fall to a still-respectable 54.0%. Arguably, it makes sense to include “no shows,” since some people may not appear due to no fault of their own. However, I chose to leave them out, since I suspect most have either found other relief or have left the country, and I don’t think it is useful to evaluate Asylum Offices based on denials where the applicant never appeared for an interview.

One problem with my comparison is that there are more asylum offices today than there were in 2015. The two new offices are Boston and New Orleans. The Boston office was previously a sub-office of Newark, and the New Orleans office was part of the Houston office (though in truth, I am not sure whether all of New Orleans’s jurisdiction was covered by Houston, or whether some was covered by Arlington). To account for this, the first numbers listed for Houston and Newark for FY2019 is the percentage of cases granted in that office. The numbers in parenthesis for Houston and Newark include cases that would have been within the jurisdictions of those offices in FY2015 (i.e., the New Orleans cases are included with Houston and the Boston cases with Newark). Thus, the parentheticals are useful only for comparison with the FY2015 numbers; if you are just interested in the percentage of cases granted in Houston and New Orleans in FY2019, look only at the first number.

The same chart, but here, I have removed one-year bar denials (reminder: Beware!!).

As you can see, there is an overall decline in the grant rate at most offices. In some cases, this decline is quite significant. One office–Houston–bucked the trend and actually granted a higher percentage of cases than in FY2015.

But perhaps things are not quite as bad as they appear. The numbers in the first chart include cases denied solely because the applicant failed to file asylum on time (remember that you are barred from asylum unless you file within one year of arriving in the U.S. or you meet an exception to that rule). In the second chart, I factored out cases that were denied solely because they were untimely (the Asylum Offices have been identifying late-filed cases and interviewing them; unless the applicant overcomes the one-year bar, the case is referred to Immigration Court without considering the merits of the asylum claim; since they are interviewing many such cases, this is pushing overall denial rates up). Comparing the two fiscal years in chart two, the decline in grant rates is much less severe. Indeed, three offices granted a higher percentage of timely-filed cases in FY2019 than in FY2015.

So what’s happening here? Why did grant rates generally decline? Why did some offices improve? What does all this mean for asylum seekers?

First of all, these numbers must be taken with a big grain of salt (and not just because I am an incompetent mathematician). A lot is going on at each Asylum Office. Different offices have different types of cases, including different source countries, greater or fewer numbers of unaccompanied alien children (“UAC”) cases, and different policies in terms of interviewing untimely applicants. As a result, some offices may be interviewing more “difficult” cases, while other offices are interviewing more “easy” cases. Offices that interview many Central American cases, or many UAC cases, for instance, will likely have lower grant rates than other offices. This is because Central American cases and UAC cases are more likely to be denied than many other types of asylum cases. Also, some offices are more aggressive than others in terms of identifying and interviewing untimely asylum cases. Offices that interview more late-filed cases will likely have a higher denial rate than offices that interview fewer late-filed cases.

Despite all this, it is fairly clear that the overall trend is negative. One obvious reason for this is a series of precedential cases and policy changes during the Trump Administration that have made it more difficult for certain asylum seekers, particularly victims of domestic violence and people who fear harm from Central American gangs. In addition–and I think this is probably less of a factor–the leadership at DHS and DOJ has repeatedly expressed hostility towards asylum seekers and encouraged the rank-and-file to identify and deny fraudulent applications.

Finally, as my colleague Victoria Slatton points out, it’s possible that the negative trend is worse than what the numbers above reflect. In FY2015, the Asylum Division gave priority to UAC cases. Since such cases are more likely to be denied, interviewing more of them may have pushed the overall grant rates down. In FY2019, UAC cases were not given priority, meaning that (probably) fewer UACs were interviewed. All things being equal, fewer UAC cases should mean a higher overall approval rate, but that is not what happened at most Asylum Offices. This may mean that more non-UAC cases are being denied today than in FY2015.

As you can see, there are a lot of moving parts, and a lot is going on behind these numbers. In one important sense, though, things have not changed much in the last four years. Strong cases still usually win; weak cases often fail. For asylum seekers (and their lawyers), we can only control so much of the process. Submitting a case that is well prepared, consistent, and supported by evidence will maximize your chances of success. And as the numbers above show, success is still possible even in these difficult times.  

Continue reading

232 Comments