The Trump Administration has been doing everything it can to block asylum seekers from reaching our shores (everything, that is, except working with Congress to reform the law). Many of the Administration’s policies are legally questionable (to put it mildly), and have been challenged in federal court. Now, in an extraordinary move, a union that represents Asylum Officers has filed an amicus brief opposing a policy of President Trump (their boss).
The Administration policy at issue is officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols or MPP. It is also called the “Remain in Mexico” plan, and it requires many asylum seekers entering the United States from Mexico illegally or without proper documentation to be returned to Mexico for the duration of their immigration proceeding. As a result of the MPP, over 12,000 people have been forced to wait in Mexico while their cases are adjudicated in the U.S.
Acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli responds to the question, “How many asylum seekers will be interviewed this year under the MPP?”
The problems with the MPP are too numerous to list here. But for starters, Mexico is not a safe place for many asylum seekers, especially women, children, and sexual and ethnic minorities. Another problem is that asylum applicants stuck in Mexico have less access to legal assistance and less due process of law. Of course, all this is by design, as the MPP is clearly meant to deter people from seeking asylum by punishing those who have the temerity to ask us for help.
Apparently, the MPP was also too much for many Asylum Officers, who are charged with evaluating asylum claims made by people arriving at our Southern border. Through their union, Local 1924, a group of Officers filed an “amicus” or “friend of the court” brief supporting a lawsuit that seeks to block the MPP. Amicus briefs must include a “statement of interest,” explaining why the filing party has an interest in the matter. Here is what Local 1924 had to say:
Local 1924 has a special interest in this case because, as the collective bargaining unit of federal government employees who are at the forefront of interviewing and adjudicating the claims of individuals seeking asylum in the United States, Local 1924’s members have first-hand knowledge as to whether the MPP assures the United States’ compliance with international and domestic laws concerning due process for asylum seekers and the protection of refugees and whether the MPP is necessary to deal with the flow of migrants through our Nation’s Southern Border.
There are two main reasons that Local 1924 objects to the MPP:
In the course of waiting [in Mexico] for a determination of their asylum applications, many [asylum seekers] will face persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. By forcing a vulnerable population to return to a hostile territory where they are likely to face persecution, the MPP abandons our tradition of providing a safe haven to the persecuted and violates our international and domestic legal obligations.
Moreover, the MPP is entirely unnecessary, as our immigration system has the foundation and agility necessary to deal with the flow of migrants through our Southern Border. The system has been tested time and again, and it is fully capable—with additional resources where appropriate–of efficiently processing asylum claims… The MPP, contrary to the Administration’s claim, does nothing to streamline the process, but instead increases the burdens on our immigration courts and makes the system more inefficient.
In short, the officers charged with enforcing the asylum law at the Southern border think that the MPP violates the law and endangers people who our country is obliged (under international and domestic law) to protect.
Predictably, the Acting Director of USCIS (which oversees the Asylum Division), Ken Cuccinelli, issued a statement “blasting” the amicus brief:
Union leadership continues to play games while the border crisis intensifies. Lives are being lost, detention facilities are unsustainably overcrowded, and illegal aliens with frivolous claims continue to overwhelm our system. The fact of the matter remains that our officers signed up to protect the truly vulnerable, our asylum system, and most importantly, our country. A cheap political stunt helps no one and certainly does not help to contain this crisis.
In his statement, Mr. Cuccinelli fails to address any of the substantive claims raised in the amicus brief (shocking, I know). Instead, he falls back on the old talking point that frivolous asylum claims are somehow to blame for the crisis at the border. Of course, there is little evidence to support this position, but as a climate-change denier, Mr. Cuccinelli is obviously not beholden to concepts such as evidence or common sense (or common decency).
In my experience, most Asylum Officers take their jobs very seriously. They recognize their duty to uphold the asylum law and to grant or deny protection where appropriate. They also recognize their duty to protect the United States. This sense of responsibility to country stands in sharp contrast to the arrogance of the Trump Administration and the USCIS Acting Director, who seem to think they can run roughshod over our nation’s laws and force government employees to do the same. For this reason, I think the amicus brief is significant: It stands as an expression of independence of Asylum Officers (or at least those in Local 1924) to make decisions in accordance with the law, even when their higher-ups demand that they do otherwise.
I hope Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges around the country will take note. I hope that they will read the amicus brief, particularly the recitation of our country’s proud (but imperfect) history of protecting people fleeing harm. And most of all, I hope Officers and Judges will continue to follow the law, even when the political leadership pushes them to ignore it. Following and enforcing the law is the ultimate “rebellion” against the current Administration’s lawlessness. Our asylum system, our country’s moral integrity, and the lives of asylum seekers all depend on it.
Moving to another country can be challenging and confusing. Navigating that new country’s legal system can be downright maddening. As an asylum attorney, I’ve observed my clients’ behavior in Immigration Court, the Asylum Office, and during USCIS interviews, and I’ve accumulated a list of do’s and don’ts (mostly don’ts) for interacting with immigration officials. So, in no particular order, here’s what to do and not do, when you appear for your hearing or interview–
Do turn off your cell phone (don’t put it on “silent” or “vibrate” – turn it off)
Do dress respectfully
Do not wear a hat (unless it is religious garb, like a hijab or kippah)
Do not engage in fake emotional outbursts, like crying or screaming uncontrollably – it is not culturally appropriate in American, and it will potentially make the decision-maker uncomfortable, embarrassed or angry (you can express your emotions – just don’t be fake)
Don’t wear perfume or cologne
Do do these do’s or you’ll be due for deep doo doo (times deux).
Don’t answer a question when you do not know the answer – Don’t guess!
Do take a bath beforehand
Don’t tell the decision-maker that she is good-looking, smart, professional, well-dressed, brilliant, funny, Christ-like or anything else that resembles kissing her ass – this will probably only aggravate and/or creep out the person you are trying to flatter
Do tell the truth
Don’t cry and beg for a good decision
Do turn off your cell phone (I mean it!)
Do use the bathroom before your interview or hearing, so you do not have to interrupt proceedings to run to the potty
Do not lose your temper with or be disrespectful to the Immigration Judge, DHS attorney, Asylum Officer, interpreter, clerk, security guard or anyone else involved in the process
Do not chew gum (or tobacco, toothpicks or anything else)
Don’t bring small children to the court or the interview unless they are required to be present
Do bring all your original documents with you (all passports, birth certificates, marriage certificates, divorce documents, school and work records, military records, medical documents, death certificates, police reports, ID cards, photos, witnesses letters, etc. – in short, if you submitted a copy of it, bring the original if you have it)
Do show up on time (or better yet, show up early)
Don’t answer questions that you do not understand (just say, “Sorry, I do not understand the question”)
Don’t take advice from friends or family members if they do not know what they are talking about
Do be friendly and make eye contact
Don’t avoid responsibility for bad things you did, such as criminal conduct or prior misrepresentations – if you take responsibility, express remorse, apologize, explain how you have changed, and show that you will not repeat the bad behavior, you are most likely to overcome the problem (of course, if you have a criminal or misrepresentation issue, you should talk to a lawyer for guidance)
Do get a good night sleep beforehand (even though this can be difficult)
Do listen carefully and respond to the question that is asked; not to the question that you wanted them to ask
Do not try to avoid the questions or change the subject
Don’t interrupt other people, especially Judges, Trial Attorneys, and Asylum Officers
Don’t get flustered – if you are losing your cool, take a breath, or ask for a moment to compose yourself
Don’t leave your cell phone on – shut it off! (did I already mention this?)
Do stand up when the Judge enters the courtroom
Do not repeat the entire oath after the Judge or Asylum Officer asks whether you swear or affirm to tell the truth – just say, “I do” or “yes”
Do speak slowly and clearly, and, if you are using an interpreter, break up long answers into shorter bits so the interpreter can accurately translate everything you say
Do not bring weapons or other prohibited items to the courtroom or Asylum Office
Do not roll your eyes or use other disrespectful body language
Do answer questions verbally – you cannot nod your head for “yes” or “no”
Do sit up straight
Do not plead “Not guilty!” at the Master Calendar Hearing
Do think before you speak – Why are you being asked this question? What might the questioner have in mind?
Don’t answer a question in court if your attorney objects to that question – let the Judge make a decision on the objection. Depending on how the Judge rules, you may not be required to answer the question
Do not forget where you are and get too comfortable/familiar – remember, you are being judged (literally)
Do not use curse words or rude language, unless it is part of the story you are telling
Do not refer to the Immigration Judge as “Your Lordship,” “Your Majesty,” “Your Highness,” “Oh Great One,” “Your Holiness,” “He Who Must Not Be Named,” or any other unusual sobriquet – in the U.S., we say “Your Honor”
Do not refer to the Asylum Officer by any weird sobriquets either – you can call the officer “Officer” or “Sir” or “Ma’am”
Do review your case before any hearing, and think in advance about how to respond to difficult questions
And most important of all, Do pay your lawyer (especially if you are my client!)
So that’s about it. This list is not comprehensive, of course, and so if you have any suggestions, please let us know. And in case I forgot to mention it: Turn off your cell phone!
In case you hadn’t noticed, the asylum system has essentially collapsed. A lucky few still have their cases decided, but they seem to be a minority. It is painfully clear that the backlog continues to grow. It currently stands at about 327,000 affirmative asylum cases and more than 908,000 cases in Immigration Court (how many of these court cases involve asylum, I do not know). The heart of the problem is mathematical: Too many applicants; too few resources. Unfortunately, we are not moving towards a solution at either the legislative or regulatory levels.
In terms of new regulations and policies, the Trump Administration’s only apparent plan is to deter would-be asylum seekers by making the process more painful and by trying to block people from reaching our shores. In my opinion, making the asylum process more painful won’t work. That’s because whatever harm the Administration can impose (family separation, indefinite detention, “wait in Mexico,” hieleras, tear gas, stricter legal standards) pales in comparison to the harm many asylum seekers face if they return home (death). Asylum seekers, being rational actors, are simply choosing the lesser evil, and coming to the United States. Blocking people from coming here might be more effective, but again, I have my doubts. People are fleeing for their lives and determined to reach safety, and so gaining better cooperation from Mexico, building bigger walls, and tightening up visa requirements will only get us so far.
In today’s divisive environment, progress is measured in centimeters and Grahams.
The “problem” from the Trump Administration’s viewpoint is that the law of asylum still offers refuge to those fleeing persecution. Thus, the Administration’s efforts to change the regulations (which modify how the law is applied) can do only so much. To change the law requires Congressional action. During the first two years of Mr. Trump’s presidency–when Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress–there was no effort to reform the asylum law. Now, with the Democrats in control of the House, legislation is only possible if the two parties reach a compromise. And compromise in Washington has lately proved elusive (just a bit).
Elusive, yes, but perhaps not impossible. Recently, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham proposed changes to the asylum system to increase the length of time families can be held in detention and to add 500 new Immigration Judges, among other (mostly punitive) ideas. Despite the hard line, Mr. Graham expressed a willingness to “put other immigration ideas on the table to marry up with this.” Mr. Graham’s bill may be all stick and no carrot, but at least it signals a desire to address asylum reform. On the House side, the Democratic majority (with a few Republicans) passed a bill to protect Dreamers. Perhaps these opening bids could lead us in a productive direction.
The fact is, while asylum policy is a difficult issue, it should be amenable to a legislative fix. If politics were removed from the mix (a very big “if”), we could find policy solutions that would greatly improve the current situation. What would such a “solution” look like? Spoiler alert: I don’t have an answer. But I do have some ideas, at least about where we can get started–a foundation upon which legislation can be built. Here, I want to discuss the fundamental elements of this foundation:
– We must be honest about the problem: The Trump Administration has not been truthful about why asylum seekers are coming to our country, who they are, or what they do once they get here. It’s very difficult to move towards a reasonable policy solution when we are living in dystopian fantasy land. Asylum seekers are not invading our country. They are not coming to collect welfare or commit crimes. The data is pretty clear that they are basically regular people, who are coming here because they fear harm back home. They tend to commit fewer crimes than the average American, and they make an overall modest contribution to our economy. Reforming the asylum system will require a realistic and honest appraisal of asylum seekers, and so we have to stop the politically-motivated effort to demonize them.
– We need to decide who should receive asylum: The asylum law provides for five protected categories: Race, religion, nationality, political opinion, and particular social group (“PSG”). These categories exist because our nation decided to protect people who face these types of harm. Conversely, other types of harm–such as generalized violence in war or criminal violence–were not considered worthy of protection. Why did we make this distinction? Because these types of harm in some way reflect our national values (political freedom, religious freedom, and racial equality, to name a few). But these categories were largely created by white men to protect against harm inflicted on other white men, and national values evolve over time. In the case of the protected asylum categories, this evolution occurred through litigation, not through any sort of consensus legislation (with one exception, which relates to forced abortion and forced sterilization).
For example, litigation has expanded the definition of PSG to encompass a diverse range of applicants (LGBT individuals, victims of FGM, victims of domestic violence, members of a family, and many more) who were not on the radar when the law was created. This indeterminacy has led to shifting interpretations of the law (depending partly on the Administration in power), inconsistent decision-making at the individual level, and confusion and misinformation among asylum seekers about who is protected. This chaos has contributed to the influx of Central American migrants arriving at our Southern border, who are mostly seeking protection based on PSG.
In order to resolve this crisis, we need to make a decision by legislation, not by litigation, about who we want to protect. For example, we can choose to protect victims of domestic violence, or not. That is our right as a sovereign nation. However, in making that decision, we need to be honest about what we are doing–these people are often facing life-threatening harm. We can send them back, if we so choose, but we cannot pretend that they are returning to someplace safe. In other words, we can choose to let anyone in, or keep anyone out, but we have a moral obligation to make that decision based on facts–not based on anti-immigrant propaganda. If we can define more precisely who is eligible for protection, we can create more certainty for migrants, and hopefully deter those who do not qualify. Further, if this is done with the support of most Americans (i.e., through legislation), the decision about who to protect will have more legitimacy and be more sustainable.
– We need to decide how much due process is due: Even for people arriving at the border, we have a Cadillac-immigration system. This includes Border Patrol Agents, detention facilities, Asylum Officers, Immigration Judges, ICE attorneys, administrative support staff, and many others. All this is expensive, especially when you have thousands of asylum applicants presenting at the border each week. Our system is not designed to handle such a high volume of cases, and unless we are prepared to significantly increase resources to review asylum applications, something has to change.
One option is to screen applicants and release those who pass a credible fear interview (“CFI”), and then require them to return for a court hearing (what our President has eloquently called “catch and release”). This has the advantage of ensuring a high level of due process for everyone seeking protection at our borders, but has the disadvantage of essentially opening the border to anyone who can pass a CFI (a relatively low bar). It also seems to be politically unpopular. Another option is to detain some or all asylum seekers until we can give them a full hearing. This has the advantage of providing a higher level of due process (to the extent that a person can exercise her due process rights while detained), but comes with a heavy cost, both economically and in human terms. A third option is to provide a lower level of due process, maybe a rigorous CFI, followed by removal for those who are denied. Such a system would provide some measure of justice, but would result in the return of many people who might qualify for protection if they had time to gather evidence and present their cases. Another option might be to provide no due process at all: Anyone who requests asylum at the border can be placed into a refugee camp or sent to a safe third country, and will remain there until the crisis in the home country is resolved (which the way things are going, is probably forever). This would solve the problem of protecting people from imminent harm, but would result in long-term issues, since it would potentially create a permanent community of displaced people.
Perhaps the point here is that, while there may be no perfect solution, we need to think in realistic terms about the level of due process we want to offer asylum seekers who arrive at our border.
The idea that Congress and the President could actually come up with a rational solution to improve the asylum system seems almost fantastical in this age of divisiveness and gridlock. But something has to be done. The first step is to speak honestly about what is going on, and then to work towards a solution that is made democratically, and which considers our country’s national and economic security, moral ideals, humanitarian commitments, and the rule of law.
Last month, the Asylum Division released the most recent data about the affirmative asylum backlog. The short story is that the nationwide backlog continues to grow, albeit quite slowly. Also, the growth is not evenly distributed among the various Asylum Offices–some are seeing their backlogs get larger; others are seeing their backlogs shrink. Here, we’ll take a closer look at what is happening in terms of the backlog, and also review some of the (surprising) answers that the Asylum Division gave to questions posed at the quarterly stakeholders meeting.
First, some numbers. In February 2019, the nationwide backlog was 326,767 cases; in March, it was 327,984, meaning that the backlog grew at a rate of less than 0.4%, which is pretty insignificant. However, when we break down the growth rate by Asylum Office, we see a different picture. Some offices had growing backlogs: Arlington (+1.5%), Boston (+0.2%), Houston (+1.8%), Miami (+0.8%), New York (+0.2%), New Orleans (+4.1%), and San Francisco (+0.5%). Other offices had shrinking backlogs: Chicago (-0.2%), Los Angeles (-1.3%), and Newark (-1.9%).
Typical reaction when an asylum seeker learns about the backlog.
What these numbers mean for asylum seekers is not entirely clear. For people in the backlog, only three offices seem to be making any headway at all, and so if your case is stuck in Chicago, LA or Newark, there is at least some hope that you will eventually receive an interview. Backlogged applicants in the other offices are unlikely to receive an interview any time soon, unless they can expedite their case.
For new applicants, my suspicion is that offices with shrinking backlogs are more likely to interview newly-filed cases. For example, most of our cases are filed in three offices: Arlington, Chicago, and Newark. Arlington has a growing backlog, and our experience there is that a minority of our newly filed (LIFO) cases receive interviews. In Chicago and Newark, which both have shrinking backlogs, our newly-filed cases all seem to receive interviews.
So if you plan to file for asylum, and want to maximize the chance for a fast interview, are you better off filing in Chicago, LA or Newark? Maybe. But one issue is that USCIS moves resources from office to office, and so a fast office today might be a slow office tomorrow. An example of this is Los Angeles. For years, LA was the office with the largest asylum backlog. Then, at some point, headquarters sent some help (or made some sort of change), and now LA is one of the “fast” offices. At the Asylum Division Quarterly Stakeholder meeting last month, we asked about the inequitable delays, and the leadership told us that in summer, they re-evaluate how resources are distributed. So maybe there will be changes in the coming months, and this could affect how the local offices process their cases.
What about grant rates at the different offices? There are different ways to calculate grant rates, and so to some degree, whether a particular asylum office is “easy” depends on how you crunch the numbers. I prefer to factor out “no shows” for obvious reasons. I also factor out one-year bar cases, which is arguably a bad idea, and cases referred without an interview. In other words, I want to know the grant rate for cases filed on time, where the person shows up for his interview. Using that method, the overall grant rate for the U.S. for March 2019 (the most recent month available) is 47.7% (had I not factored out the cases I don’t like, the grant rate would be much lower: 27.5%). Looking at grant rates for each office, we have: Arlington (44.0%), Boston (37.8%), Chicago (55.6%), Houston (44.7%), Los Angeles (68.3%), Miami (25.5%), Newark (43.1%), New York (23.7%), New Orleans (68.3%), and San Francisco (69.3%).
While I think there is some value to these numbers, it is important to remember that different offices serve different populations, and some populations are more likely to be denied than others. For example, though many Central American asylum seekers face severe danger, they often have a hard time winning asylum because the harm they typically face does not easily fit within a protected category under the asylum statute. For this reason, an office with many Central American cases might have a lower grant rate than an office that serves a different population. Put another way, a strong case is likely to win regardless of the office where you file. Even so, when you have such a wide range of approval rates, it’s hard to argue that a person is not better off filing in LA, San Francisco or New Orleans, as opposed to Miami or New York.
So that’s more-or-less where we are in terms of the backlog and asylum grant rates, but there is other news from the Asylum Division as well, including about the LIFO system itself. Here, the Asylum Division is claiming a win: “Since the adoption of the LIFO scheduling policy, the Asylum Division has seen an approximately 30% decrease in receipts [i.e., newly-filed asylum cases].” The theory being that frivolous asylum seekers, who just want a work permit, are deterred from filing by the LIFO system. I don’t doubt that the number of asylum seekers has dropped since January 2018, when LIFO went into effect, but I am not convinced that LIFO gets credit (or blame) for this. There could be many reasons for the down turn, including normal fluctuations in applications, the hostile environment for asylum seekers, greater difficulty in obtaining a U.S. visa, etc. However, given that the Asylum Division views LIFO as contributing to a reduction in applications, I would not expect a change in that policy any time soon.
Also at the Stakeholders meeting, the Asylum Division informed us that, between October 2018 and March 2019, “approximately 70 percent of asylum office final decisions were made within two weeks of the completed interview.” I’m a bit more skeptical about this claim. At least I do not see it for my clients, who usually wait months (at least) for a decision. Admittedly, most of my clients are not typical asylum seekers, who come from Latin America and China, and that may skew my perspective (many of my clients come from Muslim countries, which seem to require longer background checks).
One final point: There have been rumors that the Asylum Division is terminating asylum grants for people from Ethiopia due to improved country conditions. In response to a question on this point, the Asylum Division states–
The Asylum Division initiates termination review when we receive person specific evidence that an individual asylee may be subject to termination of asylum status for any of the applicable grounds under 8 C.F.R. § 208.24. We have not issued any policy memos/directives/other information regarding the termination of asylum status based on the individual no longer having a well-founded fear of persecution due to changed country conditions in the individual’s country of nationality or last habitual residence.
In other words, there is no blanket policy to terminate asylum for Ethiopians. Whether this means that Ethiopian asylees are safe, I am not sure, but at least there is no general policy to terminate asylum in such cases.
So that’s the latest from the Asylum Division. If the recent agreement with Mexico blocks applicants from coming here, we might see resources moving from the border to the backlog, which could cause things to speed up. Only time will tell, and if there is news at the next Quarterly Meeting, I will try to post it here.
An asylum seeker is tired of waiting for her interview, and so she goes to the Asylum Office to inquire about her case.
Asylum Seeker: I’ve been waiting forever for my case. Can you please tell me when I can expect an interview?
Officer: You’re in luck–we have a new system and we can tell you precisely when your asylum interview will be held. Let me check… Hold on… Ok, I see that your interview will be in exactly two million years.
Asylum Seeker: What?!!? When will my interview be?
Officer: In exactly two million years.
Asylum Seeker: Oh, thank goodness! I thought you said two billion years.
(2)
A Trump supporter stands outside the Immigration Court and waits for an asylum seekers to arrive for his hearing.
Trump Supporter, yelling at the Asylum Seeker: All our troubles come from the asylum seekers!
S.O.L.
Asylum Seeker: That’s right – from the asylum seekers and from the bicycle riders.
Trump Supporter: From the bicycle riders? Why from the bicycle riders?
Asylum Seeker: Why from the asylum seekers?
(3)
Two DHS attorneys board a plane to the Federal Bar Association conference in Memphis. One sits by the window and the other sits in the middle seat.
After a few moments, an asylum attorney sits down in the aisle seat. The asylum attorney makes himself comfortable, takes off his shoes, and leans back in his chair.
Suddenly, the DHS attorney by the window gets up, and states, “I think I’ll get a Coke.”
The asylum attorney in the aisle says, “No worries – I’ll get it for you.” He walks to the back of the plane to get the soda. While he’s gone, the DHS attorney spits into the asylum attorney’s shoe. The two DHS attorneys can barely keep from giggling as the asylum attorney returns to his seat, and hands over the Coke.
The DHS attorney in the middle seat then says, “That looks good. I think I’ll get myself a Coke too.”
Again, the asylum attorney offers to run down the aisle and grab another Coke. While he’s gone, the second DHS attorney spits into the asylum attorney’s other shoe. Once again, the DHS attorneys suppress their laughter just in time, as the asylum attorney returns with a second Coke.
The flights proceeds uneventfully from there, and lands on time in Memphis. On the ground, the asylum attorney slips into his shoes. Immediately, he realizes what’s happened. “How long must this go on?” he asks. “The fighting between our two sides.” “The hatred? The animosity? The spitting in the shoes and the peeing in the Cokes?”
(4)
A Syrian refugee walks into a travel agency in Amman. The agent greets her and asks, “Where to?”
“Where to?” the refugee repeats thoughtfully. “I wish I knew. Let me look at your globe.”
The Syrian refugee slowly spins the globe around, looking carefully at the different continents and countries. After a few minutes, the refugee turns to the travel agent. “Pardon me,” she asks, “but do you have anything else to offer?”
(5)
During the Second World War, after three months of waiting in Casablanca, a Jewish asylum seeker named Lowenthal had almost given up hope of getting a visa for the United States. The U.S. consulate was constantly filled with refugees, and it was virtually impossible even to get an interview with an American official. Finally, Lowenthal was able to make an appointment.
“What are my chances of entering your country?” he asks.
“Not very good, I’m afraid,” said the official. “Your country quota is completely filled. I suggest you come back in ten years.”
“Fine,” replied Lowenthal. “Morning or afternoon?”
Mahir Ahmed really wants you to know that he’s a “legitimate” asylum seeker. Not like those other people who are “deliberately breaking U.S. laws” and “jumping in line” ahead of good people like him. To confront this crisis, which has delayed a decision in his case, Mr. Ahmed declares his support for President Trump’s border wall.
I have some sympathy for Mr. Ahmed ‘s frustration at the slow pace of his case, since many of my clients are similarly delayed. But his desire to slam the door on certain asylum seekers who he considers illegitimate demonstrates a deep ignorance of our asylum system, not to mention a profound arrogance about his own moral standing.
First, let’s take a look at Mr. Ahmed’s “legitimate” asylum case. Mr. Ahmed is from Ethiopia. He was born Muslim, in a “community that is virtually 100 percent Muslim.” After he came to the U.S. (legally!), he converted to Christianity. He writes that his “decision to leave and criticize Islam publicly forced me to resort to asylum.”
Mahir Ahmed offers his new-found Christian love to all asylum seekers. Except those who get in his way.
As an asylum lawyer, I have done apostasy cases from many countries. In some places, apostasy is illegal, and can be punished by death. Ethiopia is not one of those places. In fact, Ethiopia is mostly Christian, and while Mr. Ahmed’s community may be “virtually 100 percent Muslim,” his country is only 34% Muslim. This means internal relocation is a real possibility. If Mr. Ahmed can live safely in some other part of Ethiopia, he is ineligible for asylum. Further, it is unlikely that Mr. Ahmed fears persecution from the Ethiopian authorities, and so if the government can protect him from his Muslim community, he would also be ineligible for asylum. This is not to say that his claim is illegitimate, but an apostate from a country like Iran, Pakistan or Afghanistan might consider Mr. Ahmed to be unfairly blocking up the asylum system when he could potentially live safely in his own country. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Or something like that.
Now let’s take a look at some of Mr. Ahmed’s claims about these “law breaking” asylum seekers who have supposedly delayed the decision in his case. In fact, Mr. Ahmed was one of the lucky asylum seekers who received an interview quickly, based on LIFO. The Asylum Officer told him to return two weeks after the interview to collect his decision. Mr. Ahmed was excited: “You can imagine how thrilled I was knowing that no matter what the decision was, it would all be over within two months of filing. No more worrying, wondering, and being in limbo.” But then, the Officer called and informed Mr. Ahmed that he could not pick up the decision after all; it would come by mail. He “was told they have no idea when [the decision would be made] and that the fact that I had legal status might be a factor in the delay since priority is being given to illegal immigrants.” Mr. Ahmed was shocked: “I couldn’t believe that illegal immigrants would be given higher priority than someone who followed the law. It just seemed unfair to me that jumping in line would put you ahead.” More than seven months later, Mr. Ahmed is still waiting for a decision.
After doing a bit of research, Mr. Ahmed found that since the time he filed his case, “more than 460,000 illegal crossings took place” at the Southern border. The “vast majority of the crossers claimed asylum and basically got priority processing over everyone who filed their cases legally, myself included.” “That is exactly why I’m for the border wall,” he writes. “True asylum seekers will still be able to file for asylum at the ports of entry [and] maybe even in their home countries soon,” if a proposed anti-asylum bill becomes law.
There’s a lot to unpack here, and we only have time to address the major points of Mr. Ahmed’s thesis. Let’s start with his data–the 460,000 “illegal crossings.” If you look at his source for this number (Customs and Border Protection or CBP), you will see that this figure represents people “apprehended between points of entry” from October 2018 through April 2019. While Mr. Ahmed writes that the “vast majority” of these border crossers claimed asylum, a review of the latest asylum office data reveals a different story. During this period, about 70,000 people sought credible or reasonable fear interviews, which indicates their desire to apply for asylum at the U.S. border (this is an estimate since the asylum office data is not as current as the CBP data). Thus, even assuming Mr. Ahmed is correct that these “illegal crossers” are jumping ahead of him in line, the number of line jumpers is “only” about 70,000; not 460,000.
Regardless of the statistics, Mr. Ahmed misses a more fundamental point: The law makes no distinction between “legal” and “illegal” asylum seekers. It is legal to arrive at the border (at a point of entry or elsewhere) and seek asylum. It is also legal to enter the U.S. without inspection and file for asylum. The relevant legal statute, INA § 208(a)(1), states that “Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival….), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum.” And so these “illegal immigrants” that so concern Mr. Ahmed have the exact same legal right to file for asylum as he does.
Do “illegal immigrants” jump ahead of the line? Do they get priority over “legal immigrants,” such as Mr. Ahmed? In one sense, they do. When an alien arrives at the border and expresses a fear of return, she receives a credible fear interview or CFI (or if she was previously in the U.S., she receives a reasonable fear interview). This is an initial evaluation of asylum eligibility. Such interviews receive priority over “regular” asylum cases. The large number of CFIs in recent years is a major contributor to the backlog of asylum cases. In Mr. Ahmed’s case, however, he received an interview within a few months of filing. In other words, his case did not fall into the backlog. Thus, unlike other asylum seekers who filed and did not receive a timely interview, Mr. Ahmed’s case was not delayed due to “illegal immigrants” receiving CFIs.
Even for those “regular” asylum seekers who land in the backlog, I do not see how they have much basis to complain about CFIs. This is the system our country created to enforce its humanitarian immigration law. CFIs get priority because those applicants must either be approved and sent to Immigration Court for a full asylum hearing, or denied and deported quickly. If anything, people seeking asylum at the border need more protection than asylum applicants who are already in the U.S., since the latter are in no immediate danger of being returned to a country where they face persecution. As such, it makes sense to adjudicate CFIs first.
Mr. Ahmed also claims that a decision in his case was delayed because USCIS gives priority to “illegal immigrants.” He references a USCIS webpage, which indicates that “longer processing times may be required if you… are currently in valid immigration status.” First of all, this website lists several different reasons for post-interview delay, including “pending security checks” and headquarters review, which are common reasons for post-interview delay (especially, as far as I can tell, for cases involving Muslim–or formerly Muslim–men). Second, the reason a “legal” immigrant’s case may be slower than that of an “illegal” immigrant is because it requires more work to deny such a case. People in legal status receive a detailed Notice of Intent to Deny letter. People who are out of status receive a much less detailed Referral letter. Since it takes more work to create a NOID, it makes sense that such cases takes longer. A final note on this point: I have done many cases for people who are in status, out of status, and who have entered the U.S. illegally. At least in my anecdotal experience, I see no pattern of differences in processing times, and so I doubt that “illegal” cases are processed any faster than “legal” ones.
Based on his analysis, Mr. Ahmed endorses a border wall as a way to help “legitimate” asylum seekers like himself. But this “solution” has no relationship to the problem. If you want to prevent “illegal” aliens from seeking asylum, you need to change the law that allows such people to seek asylum. Perhaps by building a wall and increasing punitive measures, you can deter asylum seekers from coming here. This would help reduce the backlog (at the expense of our nation’s integrity), but you could achieve the same ends (more cheaply) by simply blocking aliens from coming here legally. If fewer people come here, fewer will ask for asylum. Indeed, the Trump Administration is trying to make it more difficult to obtain a visa if you come from a country that tends to produce visa overstays (had it been in place when he came to the U.S., this rule may very well have blocked Mr. Ahmed from coming here).
The bottom line for me is this: Anyone who reaches the U.S. and fears return to his country is a legitimate asylum seeker, and deserves to have his case carefully reviewed. Mr. Ahmed’s effort to distinguish himself from asylum applicants at the Southern border represents a basic misunderstanding of our country’s humanitarian immigration system and the values that that system represents. This is a difficult time for asylum seekers, and sometimes, among desperate people, there is an inclination to attack each other. Mr. Ahmed should resist this temptation. Instead of undermining his fellow asylum seekers, he should stand together with them. By supporting each other, we can improve the asylum system for all.
Immigration Judge Denise Slavin recently retired after 24 years on the bench. The Asylumist caught up with her to ask about her career, her role as a leader in the National Association of Immigration Judges, and the state of affairs at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”).
Asylumist: Tell me about how you got to be an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). What did you like and dislike about the job?
Judge Slavin: Before I became a Judge, I had some very different turns in my career. Early on, I worked for the Maryland Commission for Human Relations, where I prosecuted state civil rights complaints. I admired the hearing examiners, and I felt that I wanted to do that type of work. I knew [Immigration Judge] Larry Burman when I was in college, and he suggested I apply to the INS to become a trial attorney. I worked as a trial attorney from 1987 to 1990.
I then worked for the Department of Justice, Office of Special Investigations. This was maybe my favorite job. We investigated Nazi war criminals, and I worked on many interesting cases, including the case of John Demjanjuk. During my five years at the Office of Special Investigations, Judge Creppy became the Chief Immigration Judge. Since I knew him from my work in employer sanctions at INS, I called to congratulate him, and he suggested that I apply for an Immigration Judge position. I applied and got the job.
Judge Denise Slavin
I started work as an IJ in 1995. My first assignment was in Miami doing non-detained cases. I loved it there–the city was exotic and multicultural. It almost felt like I wasn’t living in the United States. It was also a good court for me to start my career on the bench. I hadn’t practiced in Miami as a Trial Attorney, so there were no expectations of me. Also, it is a large court with many judges to learn from.
I did non-detained cases for 10 years in Miami, but the work started to become a bit tedious. An opportunity came up and I transferred to the detained docket at Krome Detention Center. I loved working on those cases. The legal issues were cutting edge. I remember one three-month period, where our cases resulted in three published BIA decisions. For detained cases, the law develops quickly, and it was very challenging to keep up to speed.
I would have been happy to remain in Miami, but family issues brought me to Baltimore. The DHS and private-bar attorneys in Baltimore are very professional, and my colleagues were excellent mentors. All this helped make my time there very enjoyable.
Asylumist: What could DHS attorneys and the private bar do better in terms of presenting their cases? Are there any common problems that you observed as an IJ?
Judge Slavin: There are a lot of good DHS attorneys in Baltimore. DHS attorneys get a lot of credit with judges if they narrow the issues and stipulate to portions of the case. For example, it is so tedious when DHS inquires about every step the alien takes from her country to the United States. If there is no issue with the journey to the U.S., it is not worth going into all this, and it uses up precious court time. When DHS attorneys ask such questions, it would sometimes be frustrating for me as a Judge, since I do not know what they have in their file and what they might be getting at. But if there is nothing there, it is very frustrating to sit through. DHS attorneys should only explore such avenues of questioning if they think there is an issue there. When they focus on real issues, and don’t waste time sidetracking, they gain credibility with the IJs.
As for the private bar, I appreciate pre-hearing briefs on particular social groups. Also, explaining whether the applicant is claiming past persecution and the basis for that, whether there is a time bar, and nexus. Of course, this can sometimes be straightforward, but other times, it is a bigger issue and a brief is more important.
I encourage both parties to work together to reach agreement on issues whenever possible. Court time is so valuable, Judges want to spend it on the disputed issues.
Asylumist: What about lawyers who are bad actors, and who violate the rules?
Judge Slavin: IJs are prohibited from reporting attorneys directly to bar associations. Instead, we report the offending lawyer to internal EOIR bar counsel, who then makes a decision about whether or not to go to the state bar. Personally, I have been hesitant to report private attorneys because I think the system is unfair–it allows you to report a private attorney, but not a DHS attorney. Although this is unfair (and it is another reason why Immigration Courts should be Article I courts), there were times when I had to report blatant cases of attorney misconduct.
Asylumist: Looking at your TRAC statistics, your denial rates are much higher for detained cases. Some of this probably relates to criminal convictions and the one-year asylum bar, but can you talk about the difference in grant rates for detained vs. non-detained cases? Do IJs view detained cases differently? Perhaps in terms of the REAL ID Act’s evidentiary requirements (since it is more difficult to get evidence if you are detained)?
Judge Slavin: There were two detention centers in the Miami area—Krome and Broward Transitional Center–and they produced two different types of cases. At Krome, detainees mostly had convictions and had been in the U.S. for years. It is very difficult to win asylum if you have been here for that long. It’s hard to show that anyone would remember you, let alone persecute you, if you return to your country after a decade or more. BTC held newly arriving individuals who were claiming asylum. They generally had more viable claims.
As a Judge, I did account for people being detained. I didn’t want to deprive someone of the right to get a piece of evidence, but I didn’t want to keep the person detained for an extra three months at government expense to get the document. If there is no overriding reason to require corroboration, I would not require it for detained applicants. In many cases, corroboration that you would normally expect, you cannot get in the 30-day time-frame of a detained case. I have continued cases were there was needed corroboration, but I generally tried to avoid that.
Also, in adjudicating detained cases, it is important to consider the spirit of the asylum law, which is generous. But for people with convictions, we have to balance the need to protect an individual from persecution against the competing interest to protect the United States from someone who has committed crimes here. In a non-detained asylum case, the potential asylee should be given the benefit of the doubt, but–for example–in a detained case where the applicant has multiple criminal convictions, the person may not receive such a benefit of the doubt, and a Judge would rather err, if at all, on the side of caution and protect the community.
Asylumist: Again, looking at the TRAC statistics, your grant rates tend to be higher than other IJs in your local court. What do you think accounts for that? How do different IJs evaluate cases so differently?
Judge Slavin: In asylum cases, we don’t have a computer to input information and come up with an answer. The immigration bench does and should reflect the diverse political backgrounds of people in our country. I am more on the liberal side, but I will defend colleagues who are more conservative. We don’t want only middle-of-the road judges; we want the immigration bench to reflect our society.
As far as the TRAC numbers, it’s true that people who are represented by attorneys are generally more successful in court. However, if you have a bad case, most decent lawyers won’t take it. Such cases would be denied even with a lawyer. Since people with weak cases have a harder time finding lawyers, the disparity between represented and unrepresented individuals is not as dramatic as the TRAC statistics suggest.
Asylumist: One idea for reducing disparities between IJs is to hold training sessions where “easy” and “hard” judges evaluate a case and discuss how they reach different conclusions. Do you think this is something that would be helpful? What type of training do IJs need?
Judge Slavin: We have not had this type of training, but it would be interesting. EOIR has not been consistent about training. In-person trainings come and go. They do hold video training sessions, but these are horrible. Judges would get some time off the bench to watch the videos, but due to the pressing backlog, we would usually do other work while we were watching.
Also, looking at talking heads is not a good way to learn new information. In addition, the social opportunities to talk to other Judges with different backgrounds and different judicial philosophies that occur only during in-person trainings are invaluable.
The National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) has tried to get EOIR to hold different types of trainings, such as regional conferences–where, for example, all the IJs in the Eleventh Circuit would get together–but unfortunately, EOIR has not gone for that approach.
In my experience, the more interactive trainings are more helpful. I’ve learned the most from talking with other IJs and from in-person trainings. This was one of the advantages of serving on a big court like Miami–the opportunity to interact with many other judges and see how they handled their dockets.
Another idea is to give IJs “sabbatical time” off the bench, to observe the cases of other judges. Seeing and talking to other judges about how they handle different issues is very helpful.
Asylumist: You mentioned the NAIJ, the National Association of Immigration Judges, which is basically a union for Immigration Judges. How did you get involved with the NAIJ? What did you do as a member and leader of that organization?
Judge Slavin: I had two mentors–Judge Bruce Solow and Judge John Gossart–who were both past presidents of NAIJ. They encouraged me to get involved with the organization. I ran for Vice President with Judge Dana Leigh Marks, who ran for President. I call Judge Marks my sister from another mother. I love her to death. Prior to becoming VP, I had done some secretarial-type duties for the NAIJ, like taking the minutes. I originally joined NAIJ to help improve the Immigration Court system.
As they say, bad management makes for good unions. When management is good, the number of NAIJ members falls, and when management is bad, more judges join. The situation these days is not good. In particular, the politicization of the Immigration Courts has been outrageous. This has been going on in several administrations, but has reached a peak in the current Administration.
Another issue is that we have judges doing more and more with less and less. It’s crazy. When I was in Miami and we had a thousand cases per judge, we were hysterical. When I left the court in Baltimore, I had 5,000 cases! Despite this, management at EOIR thinks that judges are not producing. The idea of this is absurd. Management simply does not recognize what we are doing, and this is bad for morale.
The previous Director of EOIR, Juan Osuna, appreciated the court and the judges, even if there were some political issues. When you have someone who does not appreciate what you are doing, and who gives you production quotas, it creates a very difficult environment.
These days, I do worry, especially for the newer judges. If you have to focus on getting cases done quickly, it will cause other problems–some cases that might have been granted will be denied if the applicant does not have time to gather evidence. Also, while many decisions can be made from the bench, for others, the Judge needs time to think things through. For me, I had to sleep on some of my cases–they were close calls. I needed time to decide how best to be true to the facts and the law. I also had to think about how my decision might affect future cases—most IJs want to be consistent, at least with their own prior decisions. To make proper decisions often takes time, and if judges do not have time to make good decisions, there will be appeals and reversals. For these reasons, production quotas will be counter-productive in the long run.
Other problems with the court system include the aimless docket reshuffling, which started with the Obama administration. IJs should determine on their own how cases are set on their dockets. Cases should be set when they are ready to go forward, not based on the priorities of DHS.
The main issue here is that DHS [the prosecutor] is very much controlling EOIR [the court]. The ex-parte communication that occurs on the macro level is unheard of–the priorities of DHS are communicated through backdoor channels to EOIR, and then EOIR changes its priorities. Have you ever heard of a state prosecutor’s office telling a state court which cases to set first? This re-shuffling affects IJs’ dockets–we would receive lists of case numbers that we had to move to the front of the queue. We had no control over which cases had to be moved. Instead, cases were advance based on DHS priorities.
Maybe one silver lining of the politicization under the current Administration is that it has helped people realize the need for an Article I court.
Asylumist: Bad management makes for good unions. What is your opinion of the leadership at EOIR today? What more could they do to support judges?
Judge Slavin: It’s hard to think about EOIR in this political environment. Former Director Juan Osuna was wonderful. He spent a lot of time minimizing damage to the court by the Department of Justice and Congress; for example, by explaining how judicial independence and due process prevented placing artificial constraints on the number or length of continuances granted. These concepts seem to elude the current leadership of EOIR, and the administration has moved to strip us of the tools we need (such as administrative closure) to control our dockets.
The court has many needs that are not being addressed. We need more and better training. We need larger courtrooms–it drives me crazy that we cannot get courtrooms the size we need; with children, families, and lawyers–we need more space.
Also, we need more judges. I retired, and a lot of people coming up behind me are getting ready to retire. It is hard to keep up with the numbers. One idea is to implement phased retirement for IJs, so judges could work two or three days per week. This was approved four years ago, but not implemented. I do not know why.
Judge Marks [former President of the NAIJ] and I talked to EOIR about hiring retired IJs back on a part-time basis. We asked about this 10 years ago, and they are finally getting around to it. That will help, and hopefully, EOIR can step up that program.
Recent changes that affected judges directly, such as limiting administrative closure, are not good for case management.
The NAIJ leadership and I have talked to EOIR Director James McHenry about some of this. He is not getting it. He is very young, and he thinks he has a new approach, but he does not know the history or background of EOIR, and he does not seem to grasp what the agency needs to do. He also does not understand how overworked judges have been for such a long time, and seems to think the problems with the court are based on lack of commitment and work ethic of the judges. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Asylumist: How would it help if Immigration Courts became Article I courts?
Judge Slavin: Article I courts would still be part of the Executive Branch. Immigration is a plenary power, but when it comes to case-by-case adjudication, that issue disappears. The bottom line is that people are entitled to due process, and that requires judicial independence. I don’t think you can have due process without judicial independence. This is one of the hallmarks of the America legal system. Even arriving aliens are entitled to due process. If we change that, we are starting to give up who we are. If we are trying to save the U.S. from terrorists by eliminating due process for all, what are we saving? It is taking away an important tenant of our democratic system.
There is a plan to transition the Immigration Courts to Article I courts. The Bankruptcy Court did it. The plan allows for grandfathering of sitting IJs for a limited period. The sooner this is done, the easier it will be. And in fact, it must be done.
If we had Article I courts, we would eliminate aimless docket reshuffling and political priorities. Judges would control their own dockets, and this would lead to better morale and better efficiency.
Earlier this month, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”)–the office that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts–issued a Myths vs. Facts sheet, to explain that migrants are bad people and that most of them lose their asylum cases anyway.
I am always suspicious of “myths vs. facts” pronouncements, and to me, this one from EOIR seems particularly propaganda-esque (apparently the Washington Post Fact Checker thinks so too, as they gave the document two Pinocchios, meaning “significant omissions and/or exaggerations”). In terms of why EOIR created this document, one commentator has theorized that the current agency leadership is tired of answering the same questions and justifying its actions, and so they created a consolidated document that could be used whenever questions from the public or Congress come up.
EOIR has released a new “Myths vs. Facts” brochure.
This is a plausible enough explanation, but I wanted to know more. Lucky, I have a super-secret source inside EOIR itself. I met up with my source in a deserted parking garage, where he/she/it/they (I am not at liberty to say which) handed me a sealed envelope containing an additional sheet of myths and facts. These myths and facts didn’t make it into EOIR’s final draft. But now, for the first time, in an Asylumist exclusive, you can read the myths and facts that EOIR did not want you to see. Here we go:
Myth: Aliens who appear by video teleconferencing (“VTC”) equipment get just as much due process as anyone else. Maybe more. Fact: The video camera makes aliens who appear by VTC look 20% darker than their actual skin tone (the skill level of EOIR’s make-up crew leaves something to be desired). Since dark people are viewed as less credible and more dangerous, this increases the odds of a deportation order. Another benefit of VTC is that Immigration Judges (“IJ”) can turn down the volume every time an applicant starts to cry or says something the IJ doesn’t want to hear. This also makes it easier to deny relief. Fun fact: Newer model VTC machines come with a laugh track, which makes listening to boring sob stories a lot more pleasurable.
Myth: Immigration Judges don’t mind production quotas. In fact, most IJs keep wall charts, where they post a little gold star every time they complete a case. At the end of the month, the IJ with the most stars gets an ice cream. Fact: While some IJs relish being treated as pieceworkers in a nineteenth century garment factory, others do not. Frankly, they shouldn’t complain. EOIR recently commissioned a study, which found that a trained monkey could stamp “denied” on an asylum application just as well as a judge, and monkeys work 30% faster. Even for human judges, EOIR has determined that it really shouldn’t take more than 10 minutes to glance at an asylum case and write up a deportation order. At that rate, an IJ can deny six cases an hour, 48 cases per day, and 12,480 cases per year. Given these numbers, even IJs who insist on some modicum of due process should easily complete 700 cases per year (as required by the new production quota). And they better. Otherwise, it’s good bye homo sapien, hello pan troglodyte.
Myth: Aliens who participate in Legal Orientation Programs (“LOP”) spend an average of 30 additional days in detention, have longer case lengths, and add over $100 million in detention costs to DHS. Fact: Knowing your rights is dangerous. It might cause you to exercise them. And people who exercise their rights are harder to deport. EOIR is working on a new LOP, which will teach aliens how to properly respond to a Notice to Appear (“Guilty, your honor!”), how to seek asylum (“I feel totally safe in my country!”), how to seek relief (“I don’t need any relief – please send me home post haste!”), and how to appeal (“Your Honor, I waive my appeal!”). EOIR estimates that aliens who follow this new ROP will help reduce detention time and save DHS millions. The new ROP will help Immigration Judges as well. It’s a lot easier to adjudicate an asylum case where the alien indicates that she is not afraid to return home. And faster adjudications means IJs can more easily meet their production quotas – so it’s a win-win!
Myth: EOIR Director James McHenry got his job based on merit. He has significant prior management experience, and he is well-qualified to lead an agency with almost 3,000 employees and a half-billion dollar budget. Fact: James McHenry’s main supervisory experience prior to becoming EOIR Director comes from an 11th-grade gig stage-managing “The Tempest,” by William Shakespeare. In a prescient review, his school paper called the show “a triumph of the Will.” More recently, Mr. McHenry served as an attorney for DHS/ICE in Atlanta, and for a few months, as an Administrative Law Judge for the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer. In those positions, he gained valuable management experience by supervising a shared secretary and a couple of interns. When asked for a comment about her boss’s management skills, Mr. McHenry’s former intern smiled politely, and slowly backed out of the room.
Myth: In the EOIR Myths vs. Facts, the myths are myths and the facts are facts. That’s because the Trump Administration is always honest and credible when it comes to immigration. Fact: [Sounds of screeching metal and explosions]. Uh oh, I think we just broke the myths and facts machine…
So perhaps all is not as it seems. Sometimes, myths and facts get mixed up, especially in the Trump Administration, which has redacted human rights reports to show that countries are safe, buried other reports that don’t say what they like, and claimed that asylum lawyers are making up cases to get their clients across the border. It’s all in the grand tradition of the merchants of doubt, men and women who know better, but who obfuscate the truth–about tobacco, global warming, vaccines, whatever–to achieve a political goal (or make a buck). Why shouldn’t EOIR join in the fun? But to return to our friend William Shakespeare, I have little doubt that, eventually, the truth will out. The question is, how much damage will we do to migrants and to ourselves in the meantime?
One of the most disheartening phrases to hear at an asylum interview is when the Officer says, “Government records indicate that…” This usually means the government has information contradicting the applicant’s testimony. Here are a few examples from a couple recent interviews I attended:
Government records indicate that you applied for a visa from a third country. Can you explain why you said you never applied for any other visas?
Government records indicate that you traveled outside the United States since your first arrival here. Can you explain why you said you had not left the U.S. since that time?
Government records indicate that your neighborhood in Syria was controlled by rebel forces at that time. Can you explain why you said the neighborhood was under government control?
The first two questions were for a Pakistani client. The third question was for an Iraqi. Both applicants were denied and referred to Immigration Court.
If your nickname is “Incredible,” it does not bode well for your asylum case.
As I see it, there are a number of problems with these “gotcha!”-type questions. For one, they are vague, in that the Asylum Officer does not state exactly what information the government has, and it is difficult to adequately respond to a question that you really don’t understand. For another, some of these questions rely on information that is easy for the applicant to forget or overlook. Finally, the “gotcha!” information possessed by the government is not always accurate.
In the first example above, it seems unfair to impugn an applicant’s credibility based on his failure to remember applying for a visa years after the fact. It’s not really a major life event, and if the person did not actually get the visa and visit the country, it’s easy to see how he might forget about filing a visa application (especially since some applications are done online and the person may never even have visited the country’s embassy).
In the other examples above, the government’s information seems to be inaccurate. My Pakistani client swears he never left the U.S. since he first arrived here, and I believe him–he has no reason to lie and his I-94 record, available at the CBP website, does not indicate that he re-entered the country after his initial arrival. In the case of my Iraqi client, she was simply baffled to hear that her neighborhood was controlled by non-government forces. She says she lived in that neighborhood the entire time, and I trust her on-the-ground experience over the government’s “information.” Of course, it is possible that my clients are incorrect, or that–for some indiscernible reason–they are lying, but in these example, I have more confidence in them than I do in the government.
What’s important to understand here is that the United Sates government wants to test an asylum applicant’s credibility, but it has limited means to do so. Asylum Officers can question applicants extensively to try to ferret out lies, but a more effective approach is when the Officer can compare an applicant’s testimony with information the government knows to be true. And the government knows a lot. It knows about every U.S. visa you have ever applied for–and what you told the embassy during the visa application process. It knows about visa applications to other countries (which countries share such information with the U.S., I am not sure, but it is safest to assume that the government knows about any visa application to any country). It knows about applications made to the United Nations. It knows a lot about a person’s travel history. It also knows about your relatives’ travel and visa histories (including ex-spouses). The government knows about any arrests or contacts with U.S. (and perhaps some foreign) law enforcement. Of course, it knows about any other U.S. immigration application made by you or your family members, and it probably has copies of all such applications. The government may know about your employment and education histories, and whether you have used any other names. The government also knows about conditions in your home country, including information about political parties, rebel groups, and terrorist organizations.
In short, Asylum Officers can–and do–gather significant independent evidence about a person’s case. Even where this evidence does not bear a direct relationship to the asylum claim, they can compare that evidence to your testimony and use that to determine whether you are credible (and remember, for the Asylum Office, inconsistent = incredible). If the Asylum Officer determines that your testimony is incredible because, for example, you lied about how you obtained your visa, she could conclude that you are lying about other, more significant, aspects of your case. If that happens, your application for asylum is likely to be denied.
So what do you do? First, don’t lie. Even about small things that you think are insignificant. The Asylum Officer may ask you questions about aspects of your life that seem irrelevant or embarrassing. If that happens, think about why they might be questioning you on that topic. What might they know? Do your best to answer honestly. Don’t guess! If you guess wrong, the Asylum Officer might assume you are lying. If you don’t remember or do not know, tell the officer that you don’t remember or you don’t know.
Also, prior to the interview (ideally, when you prepare the affidavit), think about the times when you (or your family members) had contact with the U.S. government, the UN, or other foreign governments. What did you say on your applications and in your interviews? Did you lie? If so, the time to admit that is in your asylum affidavit and at the asylum interview. You are much better off affirmatively coming clean and explaining any old lies than hoping that the Asylum Officer won’t know about them. Correcting the record in this way does not guarantee that the old lie won’t be used against you, but in most cases, adjudicators appreciate the honesty and they are more likely to forgive a misrepresentation that you bring to their attention than one that they bring up in a “gotcha!” question. In addition, in many cases, the law forgives an asylum applicant for lying, if that lie was necessary for the person to get a visa and escape from her home country. Affirmatively coming clean is usually the safest approach for people who have something negative in their history.
Turning back to the above examples, maybe the best response to the first question would have been for the applicant to think about why the officer was asking him about other visa applications. If he was not sure about his answer, he might have replied, “I don’t remember applying for a visa to a third country, and so I am not sure whether I did or not.” This type of equivocal answer would at least have made it more difficult for the Asylum Officer to impugn the applicant’s credibility.
What about the second two examples, where the government’s information seems to be wrong? Here, I don’t know what the applicants could have done, other than to state that the Asylum Officer’s information is not correct. That is what my clients did, but obviously, it was not enough. The hope now is that, with the cases referred to court, the DHS attorney (the prosecutor) cannot rely on vague accusations–they will have to provide specific evidence of their claims (that client A traveled outside the U.S. or that client B’s neighborhood was controlled by a rebel group). If we are allowed to see the government’s evidence, we can (hopefully) refute it.
In an asylum interview, honest is the best policy. And if you don’t remember or don’t know, it is best to say that. Finally, if there are “issues” in your past, it is best to bring those up affirmatively and explain them in your asylum application. In these ways, you can improve your credibility and increase the likelihood of a favorable outcome in your case.
In case you haven’t noticed, President Trump is not a fan of asylum seekers. His Administration has taken a number of actions to block asylum seekers from coming to the United States and to reduce legal protections for those who are already here. Now, the President has issued a policy memo instructing the Attorney General and the (acting) Secretary of Homeland Security to propose new regulations and re-arrange resources to further discourage migrants from seeking asylum in the U.S. Let’s take a look at this most recent move, and how it might impact the asylum process.
As a preliminary matter, the news is not all bad. In Section 2 of the memo, the President re-affirms his commitment to the humanitarian immigration system: “It is the policy of the executive branch to manage our humanitarian immigration programs in a safe, orderly manner that provides access to relief or protection from removal from the United States for aliens who qualify, and that promptly denies benefits to and facilitates the removal of those who do not.” While it may not be big news that the Administration will provide “relief or protection… for aliens who qualify,” since failing to do so would violate the law, we have to take our good news where we can find it.
“Pay for asylum? No problem. I’ll have my manservant write you a check whilst I finish my charcuterie platter and valet my Bentley.”
In addition, the thrust of the new proposals seem directed towards migrants arriving at the Mexican border. Indeed, the express purpose of the memo is to address the on-going “crisis” in “our immigration and asylum system… as a consequence of the mass migration of aliens across our southern border.” It appears that some of the coming changes will affect all asylum seekers–as opposed to only those entering from Mexico–but we won’t know for sure until the AG and the DHS Secretary draw up the new regulations.
Finally, it is important to note that none of the changes in the memo have gone into effect–yet. The President has ordered his team to propose regulations within 90 days, and after that, it will likely take additional time to implement those changes (and some may be challenged in court). So for the time being, none of the new rules listed in the memo are operational.
Turning now to the specifics, the memo calls for several significant changes:
First, as I read the memo, it requires all asylum applicants who pass a credible fear interview (an initial evaluation of asylum eligibility) to present their cases before an Immigration Judge. Previously, certain applicants–most notably, minors–could present their cases in the less-confrontational environment of the Asylum Office. Now, it seems, they must present their cases in court.
Second, the memo requires that, “absent exceptional circumstances, all asylum applications adjudicated in immigration court proceedings receive final administrative adjudication, not including administrative appeal, within 180 days of filing.” [please assume there is a long pause here, while I laugh and laugh, and eventually compose myself well enough to continue writing]. This ain’t gonna happen. No way. No how. It’s another iteration of what Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt famously calls “aimless docket reshuffling” or ADS. ADS is the process whereby a new Administration comes in and imposes its particular priorities on the Immigration Court system. The very predictable result of ADS is that cases get re-arranged, judges lose control of their dockets, and most everything gets delayed much longer than if management had just left well-enough alone. The Trump Administration is by no means the first to practice ADS, but they do seem to indulge in it more frequently than prior administrations.
Third, the memo calls for “regulations setting a fee for an asylum application not to exceed the costs of adjudicating the application… and for an initial application for employment authorization for the period an asylum claim is pending.” In other words, the government wants to charge asylum seekers to seek asylum (the affirmative asylum system is currently funded by other immigrants when they pay USCIS fees). How much this fee will be, we don’t yet know, but if the fee is meant to cover the cost of adjudicating the asylum application, it won’t be cheap. Will the fee include the cost of security background checks? Immigration Court proceedings? These processes are expensive, and few asylum seekers can afford to “do business” this way.
The memo does not indicate what happens to people who cannot pay, but we can’t just deport them. Indeed, the Immigration and Nationality Act (section 241(b)(3)) and the Convention Against Torture prohibit the U.S. from returning people to countries where they face certain types of harm (this is separate from, but similar to, the asylum law). Such people apply for relief using the same form (I-589) as asylum applicants. Will the government adjudicate these other types of humanitarian applications where the person is unable to pay for asylum? We don’t know this either.
Perhaps those who cannot afford to pay will be eligible for a fee waiver. That would help, but fee waivers require significant work to complete, and so, at a minimum, many lawyers would raise their fees (since we are paid for our time). This would make it more difficult for asylum seekers to obtain legal counsel.
As I read the memo, it also seems to be calling for a fee for the initial Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”). Currently, the first EAD for an asylum applicant is free. Renewals cost money (currently $410). EADs are valid for two years, and fee waivers are available, so this particular requirement, while harmful to asylum seekers, is probably not that damaging.
Fourth, the memo calls for regulations to “bar aliens who have entered or attempted to enter the United States unlawfully from receiving employment authorization before any applicable application for relief or protection from removal has been granted, and to ensure immediate revocation of employment authorization for aliens who are denied asylum or become subject to a final order of removal.”
Currently, an alien is eligible for an EAD 180 days after she files for asylum (she can submit the application 150 days after she files for asylum). If the new memo is implemented, asylum seekers who “entered or attempted to enter the United States unlawfully”can no longer receive an EAD unless and until their cases are granted. As the memo is written, this provision would probably not apply to an alien who arrived in the U.S. with a visa, but that is not entirely clear. The phrase “entered or attempted to enter the United States unlawfully” is subject to interpretation, and if interpreted broadly, it could block some asylum seekers from obtaining an EAD, even if they entered the U.S. with a visa (for example, if the visa was procured by fraud).
Ironically, if the government succeeds in adjudicating asylum cases within 180 days (and I am skeptical about that), the EAD provision will become less important, since cases will either be granted or denied before the alien is eligible to obtain his EAD. If the case is granted, the alien will be eligible to work immediately, and if it is denied, he presumably (based on this memo) would be ineligible to work while the matter is being appealed. The problem will be for applicants who face long delays, and are unable to work lawfully. How will such people survive the wait?
Finally, the memo calls on the Secretary of Homeland Security to “reprioritize the assignment of immigration officers and any other employees of the Department as the Secretary deems necessary and appropriate to improve the integrity of adjudications of credible and reasonable fear claims, to strengthen the enforcement of the immigration laws, and to ensure compliance with the law by those aliens who have final orders of removal.” It’s unclear (at least to me) what this means, but it seems like another version of ADS. Perhaps the plan is to shift resources away from adjudicating immigration benefits and towards enforcement. While this would certainly cause even more delay for individuals, families, and businesses who rely on USCIS, any boost to the asylum or enforcement sections of DHS seems unlikely. There is just not a lot of cross-over between the different functions of DHS, and so there are only so many resources that can be shifted around. In other words, I doubt the DHS Secretary can arm Naturalization officers and enlist them to chase after aliens with final orders.
President Trump’s memo leaves many unanswered questions, and so we will have to wait for the new regulations to learn the specifics. While some of these changes may be blocked by courts, others will likely go into effect. The result will be a further erosion of our proud tradition as a beacon of hope to those fleeing harm.
This post is by the good folks at AsylumConnect, a web resource for LGBTQ asylum seekers.
There are still 70 countries, mostly in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, where homosexual activity between consenting adults is illegal, according to the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association’s latest State-sponsored Homophobia report. There are also currently six countries in which homosexuality is punishable by death.
According to Amnesty International, even in countries where homosexuality has been decriminalized, LGBTQ people can still face violence, arbitrary arrest, imprisonment and torture. An estimated 400 million LGBTQ people continue to face the risk of criminal imprisonment due to their LGBTQ identity.
As a result, every year, millions of people flee their home countries due to persecution based on their sexual orientation or gender identity (an estimated 5% of U.S. asylum claims are based on persecution of sexual orientation or gender identity, which suggests there are over 40,000 currently pending LGBTQ asylum cases in the United States).
AsylumConnect is a great organization. And it has a cool logo.
After fleeing violence, imprisonment, and death threats in their home countries, LGBTQ asylum seekers arrive in the U.S. in pursuit of a better life. However, many LGBTQ asylum seekers are traumatized when–nearly as soon as they arrive on U.S. soil–they are thrown into immigration detention facilities that replicate the very persecution they sacrificed so much to escape. LGBTQ asylum seekers, especially trans and gender non-conforming asylum seekers, are routinely targeted in ICE detention. For example, trans asylum seekers in detention are often denied access to hormones and gender-appropriate clothing, and some are physically and sexually assaulted.
The psychological and physical trauma endured by LGBTQ asylum seekers at the hands of their own government and families makes them especially vulnerable when they arrive in the United States. In addition to facing challenges as asylum seekers, LGBTQ asylum seekers face unique obstacles due to their LGBTQ identity:
An estimated 44 percent of LGBTQ refugees suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) when they arrive in the United States.
LGBTQ asylum seekers may be forced to “prove” their sexual orientation and/or gender identity to an asylum officer or immigration judge. Many are forced to face gendered stereotypes when dealing with those who are not properly trained in processing LGBTQ/SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) claims.
After experiencing severe levels of transphobia and homophobia in their home countries, many LGBTQ asylum seekers fear the organizations that they go to for help in the U.S. will also discriminate against them based on their LGBTQ identity. Once in the U.S., LGBTQ asylum seekers must find services that are both immigrant-friendly and LGBTQ-friendly during the lengthy asylum process.
While organizations that help LGBTQ asylum seekers do exist in this country (such as LGBTQ centers and verified LGBTQ-friendly immigration services), information on where to find these resources is difficult to access.
In 2014, a lesbian American and a gay asylum seeker co-founded AsylumConnect to fill this information gap. AsylumConnect is a nonprofit organization providing the first and only resource website and app designed for LGBTQ asylum. The AsylumConnect catalog currently helps LGBTQ asylum seekers find verified safe resources during the U.S. asylum process. LGBTQ asylum seekers can use AsylumConnect as a one-stop-shop to meet their needs in all aspects of their lives, including where it is safe to go for help with housing, hygiene and clothing, legal assistance, food, medical care, mental health treatment, community support, translation, transportation, education, and employment. Nonprofits and attorneys can also use AsylumConnect to easily gather verified resource referrals for their LGBTQ clients.
There should never be a moment when someone does not know where it is safe to go for help due to their LGBTQ identity or immigration status.
President Trump recently spoke to the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas. The speech was vintage Trump: Lies, distortions, middle-school insults. Frankly, it’s no longer news worthy or even interesting. But what’s different here is the audience. They were Jews. And for me, as a Jewish attorney who represents asylum seekers, their reaction to the President’s comments were horrifying:
The President says our nation’s asylum program is “a scam” and claims that asylum seekers are “some of the roughest people you’ve ever seen–people that look like they should be fighting for the UFC.” The crowd laughs.
“They read a little page given by lawyers that are all over the place,” the President continued. “You know lawyers, they tell them what to say.” Imitating one of these allegedly-coached asylum seekers, the President deadpans, “I am very fearful for my life [and] very worried that I will be accosted if I am sent back home!” More laughter.
“No, no, he’ll do the accosting,” retorts the President. Laughter, applause.
Mr. Trump went on to mock those who support our asylum system: “Oh, give him asylum,” the President whined in the persona of one of these bleeding hearts, “He’s afraid, he’s afraid!” “We don’t love the fact that he’s got tattoos on his face–that’s not a good sign [and] we don’t love the fact that he’s carrying the flag of Honduras or Guatemala or El Salvador, only to say he’s petrified to be in his country.” More laughter and applause.
“To confront this border crisis,” Mr. Trump concluded, “I declared a national emergency.” Loud cheering.
Jews yucking it up, as the President denigrates and slanders people who are fleeing for their lives. To me, this is the ultimate in Holocaust denial.
Passover is a good time to decide: Are we the Egyptians or the Israelites?
Of course, these deniers are nothing like the anti-Semitic buffoons who claim the Holocaust was a hoax. The denialism of this group of Jews is much more profound and insidious than that of “traditional” deniers. That’s because this group knows better. And because they are Jewish.
They know that the Holocaust happened; that the Nazis and their allies murdered six million Jews and five million other “undesirables.” They know too that the international community largely turned its back on refugees fleeing Nazism. The Jews in Las Vegas likely celebrate Oskar Schindler and other “righteous gentiles” who rescued Jews during the War. They lament the tale of the St. Louis–a ship carrying hundreds of Jewish refugees that was denied entry into the U.S. and forced to return to Europe, where many of the passengers perished in death camps.
Indeed, the story of the St. Louis is just one episode in our country’s shameful response to Nazism. We enforced and over-enforced visa quotas to prevent Jews from finding safety in the United States. This response was fueled by lies and half-truths: The Jews fleeing Germany were enemy aliens, they were spies and Communists, Jews and other southern and eastern Europeans were inferior to Northerners, the Jewish refugees brought disease, they would take American jobs.
And of course, blatant anti-Semitism also helped shape American attitudes towards Jewish refugees. Witness the words of Charles Lindbergh at an “America First” rally in the autumn of 1941: “Leaders of the Jewish race are not American in interests and viewpoints,” he declared. There were three groups pressing the U.S. towards war, Lindbergh continued, “the British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt Administration.” In other words, the Jews were a threat to the United States. Certainly, we should not be admitting more of them into our country.
Luckily, not all Jews were kept out. My wife’s grandfather was released from a concentration camp after he secured a U.S. visa. If not for that visa, his children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren (including my wife and children) would never have been born. Three generations of Jews exist today because some unknown consular official issued a visa, and saved a life.
On a grander scale, the magnitude of the Holocaust, and the world’s indifferent response, led to the creation of international laws protecting refugees. Our own country’s asylum system derives directly from our commitment to “never again” sit idly by as innocent people are slaughtered on account of their religion, race, political opinion or ethnic group. In that sense, the sacrifice of the Six Million was not in vain. Their deaths helped galvanize the world to try–however imperfectly–to prevent future Holocausts.
Despite this history, the Jewish audience in Las Vegas laughed and cheered to affirm President Trump’s false statements about asylum seekers. Perhaps by pretending that today’s refugees are a threat to our country, or that they are mere economic migrants, the Las Vegas Jews hope to avoid the burden of history and the burden of Passover–to welcome the stranger and to comfort the widow and the orphan. These Jews should know better. When they mock desperate men, women, and children who have come to our country seeking protection, they mirror those who mocked us in our hour of need. In so doing, they dishonor the memory of our martyrs and–in the most fundamental way–they deny the lessons and sacrifices of the Holocaust.
It’s not always easy to find a decent immigration lawyer, especially for people who are new to the country, who don’t speak much English, and who don’t really know what to expect from an attorney. What do you do if you’ve hired an attorney and have now lost confidence in him?
Before you take action, you should think carefully about whether the attorney really is failing at her job. Attorneys are busy, and we are not always as responsive to our clients as we might be. We also have to prioritize our cases based on government deadlines, and so some clients’ cases get put on the back burner until we can work on them. In addition, clients often make “small” requests that are not so easy to accommodate: Can you write a letter about my status for my job, school or landlord? Can you help me with the DMV or with the Social Security Office? Lawyers may not have the time or expertise to assist with all such requests, and they may charge extra for tasks that are outside the contract. Aside from all this, the asylum system is a mess. Cases move slowly or not at all, cases get lost, the government makes mistakes. Much of this is outside the attorney’s control, and so blaming a lawyer for systematic failures is not fair. In short, be aware that lawyers often can’t give you everything you want, when you want it, and that there is much that is outside our control.
You should probably fire your lawyer if (a) he’s a nut; (b) he’s Rudy Giuliani; or (c) he’s all of the above.
That said, lawyers are required to communicate in a timely manner with our clients. We are required to be honest with them (and with the government). We are required to do our work competently and on-time. These are requirements of the bar association–they are not optional. If we fail to fulfill these duties, we can rightly be punished. If a lawyer never gets back to you or fails to keep you updated about the case, if he changes the terms of the contract after you’ve signed it, or if he is dishonest with you or with the government, that is a problem. If the lawyer is unprepared for a hearing in court or at the Asylum Office, or if the quality of the lawyer’s work is poor, that is also a problem. If the lawyer refuses to give you a copy of the case to review before it is filed, or a copy of the case after it is filed, that is a problem too.
So let’s say your lawyer really is failing you, what can you do?
First, you may want to talk to the lawyer to explain your concerns. It would probably also be a good idea to put your concerns in writing (maybe in an email). If you are calling your lawyer, and he is not responding, keep notes about the dates and times you called. If the lawyer tells you something orally, write it down and email it to the lawyer to confirm that this is what he said. In other words, document all your interactions (or attempted interactions) with the lawyer. When a lawyer knows he is being watched carefully, he is more likely to behave properly.
Second, get a copy of your complete file from your attorney. Lawyers are required–again, this is not optional–to give our clients a copy of the complete file. Even if you owe the lawyer money, she is required to give you a copy of the file. She cannot “hold your file hostage” until you pay any outstanding fees. Lawyers–including me–don’t love this rule, as it seems unfair to give a client her file when she owes us money. Nevertheless, it is the rule, and lawyers who fail to turn over a file can face discipline (we can, however, charge a reasonable copying fee for the file). If the lawyer refuses to give you the file, you can report that lawyer to the bar association (see below).
Third, find another attorney to review your case and evaluate whether you are receiving proper representation. Lawyers love nothing better than to dis the work of our fellow lawyers–it is one of our guilty pleasures. Hopefully, a second opinion can clarify whether your current attorney is doing her job, or whether it is time to find someone new.
If you do switch attorneys, you will need to get a copy of your complete file from attorney #1, so you can give it to attorney #2. The new lawyer should be able to assist with this if necessary. Also, it is a good idea to get a copy of the file from the government, especially if you do not trust attorney #1 to give you everything that he submitted.
Also, you may be entitled to a partial refund from attorney #1, depending on the contract and on how much work the lawyer has already done for you. Some attorney contracts are “hourly,” meaning you pay for each hour (or minute) the attorney spends on your case. For such contracts, you usually submit a retainer (a lump sum payment) that the attorney “draws down” when he works on the case. So if the attorney charges $200 per hour, and works on your case for four hours, your bill is $800. If you gave that attorney a $1,500 retainer, you would be entitled to a refund of $700, which represents the “unearned” portion of the retainer fee.
Most immigration attorneys I know, including me, have “flat fee” contracts, which means that you pay a certain fee for the case. So for example, we might charge $4,000 for an affirmative asylum case. Even in flat fee contracts, however, we have to account for our time. This means if a client pays me $4,000 for a flat-fee case, and then fires me before I complete the case, the client would be entitled to a refund of unearned fees. My flat-fee contract indicates that my time is billed at $300 per hour, meaning if I worked for five hours on the case, I would get to keep $1,500 and I would have to refund the remaining $2,500.
If you fire your attorney, you can ask for an accounting of her time and a refund of unearned fees. This means, she would have to tell you about each task she worked on and how long it took. This accounting is not optional; it is required. And if the accounting seems suspicious (why did it take you three hours to write an email?), you can challenge it.
In practical terms, it is usually not so easy to get a refund, and most attorneys can justify their fees. Often, it is easier for the client to just move on. However, if you feel you were ripped off, you can and probably should pursue a refund.
Further, if your attorney was dishonest, or damaged your case, or failed to properly account for her fees, you can file a bar complaint against her. Bar complaints are also sometimes required to reopen a closed case. What is a bar complaint? All attorneys must be members of a bar association. This is an organization that monitors attorney conduct and provides training and services for lawyers and the public. Each state has its own bar association. The attorney’s contract, letterhead, website, and business card should all list which state bar association(s) he belongs to (hint: if an attorney does not make this information available, he is best avoided). If you Google “bar association” + the state, you should find the bar association website, which should have information about making a bar complaint. Once the complaint is filed, the bar association should investigate the attorney’s conduct (some bar associations are better about this than others) and, if appropriate, punish the lawyer. This punishment can range from an “admonishment” (basically, a public statement that most lawyers would find embarrassing) to disbarment, wherein the lawyer would no longer be able to practice law.
Of course, most attorneys would rather avoid having to deal with a bar complaint, so we try to follow the rules. If your lawyer is doing something wrong–not giving you your file, for example–the threat of a bar complaint might cause her to shape up.
So there you have it. In some ways, lawyers have more power than their clients, particularly immigrant clients, who tend to be less familiar with “the system” than native-born people. But clients are not powerless. You should not feel trapped in an attorney-client relationship that is not working. If your lawyer sucks, take action. Fire him. Move on. These cases are important and often life-changing. Don’t let a bad lawyer destroy your opportunity to remain in the United States.
If you look at the most recent statistics from the Asylum Division, the likelihood of receiving asylum affirmatively is only about 27%, nation-wide. However, if you remove people from the mix who filed late, or who failed to appear for their interviews, the situation is better: Nearly half of such cases (49%) were approved.
That’s the nation-wide picture, but when we look at data for the various Asylum Offices, things become less clear. Different Asylum Offices have very different denial rates for one-year bar cases (asylum seekers are required to file for asylum within one year of arriving in the United States or to meet an exception to the one-year rule; otherwise, they are barred from receiving asylum). The table below shows the likelihood that a particular Asylum Office will deny (or more politely, “refer”) an application for failure to timely file (the chart excludes cases where the applicant failed to appear for an interview):
Asylum Office
Percentage of Cases Referred to Court for Failing to File Within One Year of Arrival
Arlington
34.2%
Boston
52.9%
Chicago
13.2%
Houston
13.8%
Los Angeles
16.8%
Miami
40.3%
Newark
33.9%
New York
53.6%
New Orleans
27.3%
San Francisco
20.6%
United States
30.6%
Why should the different offices be so different in terms of late-filing referrals? It seems to me that there are two possible explanations, broadly speaking: Either the Asylum Offices are responsible for the disparity, or the asylum seekers themselves are responsible.
Unless you have a time machine, it’s best to file asylum before the one-year deadline.
The first possibility is that certain Asylum Offices are more aggressive than others about enforcing the one-year bar. I know this is the case with Immigration Judges. I am thinking of two IJs in my local court (two of my favorite IJs, by the way). I have presented several one-year bar cases to these judges. One almost invariably denies the asylum application based on the late filing (though in my cases, he granted other, lesser relief); the other looks to the “spirit” of the rule, and as long as the applicant did not have a bad intention (for example, to commit fraud), he usually excuses the late filing. It’s easier to see how this could happen with individual judges, rather than as an office-wide policy, but I suppose this is one possible explanation for the variability between Asylum Offices. If this is the correct explanation, then it makes sense for late filers to choose more friendly offices, such as Chicago or Houston, to file their cases (meaning, such people would have to live in the jurisdiction of these offices).
The other possible explanation is that the different offices are receiving different types of cases. Maybe asylum seekers in New York are too busy or too ill-informed to file their cases on time, while those in Houston have more free time, or are just more conscientious. To me, this seems a bit far-fetched (though I guess New Yorkers are pretty busy). Or maybe it has to do with the different populations served by each office. Maybe–for example–Chinese applicants are more likely to file within one year of arrival, since the Chinese community is well-aware of the one-year rule. In contrast, perhaps Central American applicants tend to arrive in the U.S. without an initial intention to seek asylum, but then decide later that they cannot return home, and in this way, they run afoul of the one-year bar. If LA has more Chinese applicants and New York has more Central Americans, perhaps this could explain the disparity. If (and its a big if) this explanation is correct, then it really doesn’t matter where you apply for asylum, as the different Asylum Offices are not responsible for the uneven one-year denial rates.
A third, hybrid explanation is that some Asylum Offices are cherry-picking their cases, and interviewing more one-year bar cases than timely-filed cases. We know, for example, that the Asylum Offices sent letters to asylum applicants who filed after 10 years in the U.S. and offered them an option to skip the interview and go directly to Immigration Court. If some offices, and not others, are deliberately selecting late-filed cases to interview, that could explain the disparity.
Frankly, I do not have much confidence in any of these explanations. But the disparity does exist and the fact is, some Asylum Offices are significantly more likely than others to deny asylum based on the one-year bar. So what can you do with this data? Does it mean that if you are filing after the one-year deadline, you should avoid Boston and New York, and instead file in Chicago, Houston or LA?
Given that it is difficult to draw a firm conclusion from the data, and given the severe consequences of filing late, the simple answer is to avoid the problem altogether by filing your asylum application on time. For those who miss the one-year deadline, it is important to prepare an explanation (with evidence) about why you filed late (I wrote about that here). This advice applies regardless of which office has your case. But I suppose the question here is: If you are filing late, should you move to a jurisdiction with an “easier” Asylum Office? (And remember, if you want your case heard by a certain office, you have to live within the jurisdiction of that office–you can check which office will adjudicate your case here).
I hate giving advice about where a person should live, but looking at the available data, it is impossible to say that a late-filer is not better off in one of the “easier” offices, like Chicago, Houston, LA or San Francisco. Obviously, there are other factors to consider–most people have to live where they have family support or a job. Also, in some instances, the one-year bar is easily overcome (for people who are still in status, for example) and so there is no reason to worry about which office has your case. But for those with more difficult one-year bar issues, it may make sense to “forum shop” and move someplace with an Asylum Office that is less likely to deny a late-filed application.
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” So says Shakespeare’s Dick the Butcher in Henry VI Part 2. Dick is advising a pretender to the throne about how to seize power. The idea is, if we get the lawyers out of the way, the lawless can prevail. Four hundred years later, it’s still good advice: If you want to violate the law, you have to somehow neutralize those who are sworn to uphold it. In recent weeks, we have seen two different governments–Iran and the United States–take steps to intimidate and marginalize attorneys who are perceived as obstructing their goals.
The more vicious case is taking place in Iran, where “prominent Iranian human rights lawyer and women’s rights defender Nasrin Sotoudeh [was sentenced] to 33 years in prison and 148 lashes.” This is on top of an earlier in absentia sentence of five years imprisonment. Her “crimes” include “inciting corruption and prostitution, openly committing a sinful act by… appearing in public without a hijab, and disrupting public order.” Ms. Sotoudeh has long been a peaceful advocate for women’s rights and against the death penalty, and Amnesty International writes that her punishment is the “harshest sentence” that the organization “has documented against a human rights defender in Iran in recent years, suggesting that the authorities – emboldened by pervasive impunity for human rights violations – are stepping up their repression.”
According to the Mullah Report, Nasrin Sotoudeh is guilty of obstructing injustice.
This is an important point–the actions of the Iranian government do not occur in a vacuum. They are part of a malignant pattern of torture, harassment, intimidation, and murder of peaceful political opponents. The obvious purpose of this terror campaign is to keep hold of political power and intimidate dissenters into silence. And of course, Ms. Sotoudeh is not alone. As the U.S. State Department notes, “hundreds of others” are also “currently imprisoned simply for expressing their views and desires for a better life.”
Commenting on Ms. Sotoudeh’s case last summer, the U.S. State Department said, “Ms. Sotoudeh has spent the past several years harassed by the Iranian regime and has been routinely placed behind bars for daring to defend the rights of those in Iran.” “We applaud Ms. Sotoudeh’s bravery and her fight for the long-suffering victims of the regime.” A State Department spokesperson called Ms. Sotoudeh’s more recent sentence “beyond barbaric.”
I agree. But unfortunately, it’s more difficult for us to condemn Iran and claim the moral high ground when our own country is also intimidating and mistreating human rights attorneys. The extent of our malfeasance is not equal to what we see in Iran, but it’s not what we expect from the United States either.
Earlier this month, NBC News reported that “Customs and Border Protection [or CBP] has compiled a list of 59 mostly American reporters, attorneys and activists who are to be stopped for questioning by border agents when crossing the U.S.-Mexican border at San Diego-area checkpoints, and agents have questioned or arrested at least 21 of them.” CBP claims that the people on the list “were present during violence that broke out at the border with Tijuana in November and they were being questioned so that the agency could learn more about what started it.” The ACLU calls the government’s actions an “outrageous violation of the First Amendment,” and argues that the “government cannot use the pretext of the border to target activists critical of its policies, lawyers providing legal representation, or journalists simply doing their jobs.”
According to the NBC News report, several lawyers have been targeted. They have been held for hours in secondary inspection, questioned, had their cell phones searched, and–in at least one case–been accused of “alien smuggling,” which is a serious crime. Referring to the NBC News report, one attorney said that it “appears to prove what we have assumed for some time, which is that we are on a law enforcement list designed to retaliate against human rights defenders who work with asylum-seekers and who are critical of CBP practices that violate the rights of asylum seekers.”
Another lawyer described his brief detention at the border. CBP officials told him that “their job is to investigate terrorism and criminal activity on the border” and they asked him questions about the work he does, the organization he works for, and how the organization gets funded. They also asked him for his cell phone, which he handed over and unlocked. “I have nothing to hide,” the lawyer said. “I’m not a criminal. I’m not a terrorist. I’m just doing my job as an American citizen.”
The effect of these tactics is not simply to frighten and inconvenience the lawyers who are stopped at the border (and to potentially violate attorney-client privilege). Targeting lawyers (and others) in this manner also has a chilling effect on anyone who might be inclined to assist migrants and try to protect their legal rights. One lawyer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, “I was going to go [to Mexico] this week, but I had to worry about whether I could get back in [to the United States].”
Being detained for a few hours and questioned is not the same as being sentenced to lashes and imprisoned for decades. However, the treatment of attorneys in the U.S. and Iran has something in common: It is designed to prevent people from exercising their rights as human beings by reducing their access to legal representation. Whether those people are migrants seeking asylum or women seeking equality, they are entitled to attorneys to assist them in securing their legal rights.
I agree with the U.S. State Department’s assessment of Ms. Sotoudeh’s case. She should not be punished for “daring to defend the rights of those in Iran.” But neither should U.S. attorneys be punished for daring to defend the rights of those lawfully seeking asylum in the United States. Our country should be setting an example for the world. We should not be lowering ourselves to the level of one of the worst human rights abusers on earth.
