To Dream the InfoPass-able Dream

by Jason Dzubow

Last week, I attended a meeting about InfoPass for the Asylum Offices. InfoPass is an online system that allows you to make an in-person appointment about your immigration case. It has been in use by USCIS for about 15 years, and now the Asylum Offices are debuting their own version of the scheduling tool. The system is operational in my local office (Arlington, Virginia), but it is not yet available nationwide. Here, I want to talk about why the Asylum Offices are implementing InfoPass and what it will do. I also want to offer some constructive criticism (or, as we say in Yiddish, I want to kvetch).

There seems to be a couple main reasons why the Asylum Offices are adopting InfoPass. First, they want to be better prepared when people show up for an inquiry. With the current walk-in system, the Asylum Office (“AO”) does not know who is coming in or why, and so they cannot prepare in advance for the meeting. InfoPass will give the AO a heads-up, which will (theoretically) allow them to pull the file, and possibly have an answer when the person arrives. Second, InfoPass will reduce the likelihood that the AO will lose documents (a problem at my local office) because they will have the file available when the new documents arrive. Third, the new system will help manage the flow of visitors to the office and reduce wait times. The overall goal is to provide better, more efficient service.

“Well, at least we can make the whole ‘sinking thing’ a bit less unpleasant.”

So what can you do with InfoPass? Once you reach the InfoPass appointment page (and remember, this link is only for the Arlington office), you will see that there are about a dozen different options, from changing your address to changing your lawyer, delivering documents, inquiring about an interview or a decision, asking about the asylum clock or missing receipts, and withdrawing the case. There is also an “other” option for nonconformists. Depending on the reason for the visit, appointment availabilities and the time allotted for your visit will vary. So if you are dropping off documents, you will receive a shorter time slot than if you are inquiring about a delayed decision. If all goes well, when you arrive at your appointment, you will be received by a person who has reviewed your file, and is ready to help you.

Before we turn to the constructive criticism/kvetching, it is important to acknowledge that the Asylum Office is trying to make things better, and they should be commended for that. For me, one take away from the meeting last week is that creating an Asylum Office InfoPass system is really hard. Not only are they building something new and integrating it with existing systems, which is technologically challenging, but they also have to account for the human factor–desperate people trying desperately to talk to a human being. It ain’t easy.

The AO’s efforts are laudable, but I have some concerns about the system as it is currently envisioned.

The first problem is that people who are seeking USCIS InfoPass appointments–as opposed to Asylum Office InfoPass appointments–are filling appointment slots at the AO. During the first day of testing, something like 40 appointments were filled up almost as soon as the system went live. All but one were taken by people who were not asylum seekers, and who were actually seeking appointments with USCIS. The problem is that “regular” InfoPass appointments are almost impossible to get, and so these non-asylum seekers migrated from the regular InfoPass webpage to the AO InfoPass webpage. It doesn’t help that links to both types of InfoPass appointments appear on the same USCIS webpage.

The obvious solution is to limit AO InfoPass appointments to asylum seekers. However, as I understand it, there are technical issues that make it difficult to implement such a system, and so the AO is stuck manually going over the appointment requests to determine whether they are actually for asylum seekers. This seems untenable, and I suspect some technological fix will eventually become necessary. Maybe an interim solution is to put a link to the AO InfoPass webpage on the Asylum Office website, as opposed to the USCIS website. At least that would reduce the likelihood that “regular” InfoPass people would sign up for an AO InfoPass.

Another problem–and this is more for lawyers than for asylum seekers–is that we now need an InfoPass appointment to file documents. While I understand why the AO is requiring this (so they can pull the file in advance and insert the new evidence), it will be a hardship for lawyers. Most cases require the submission of additional documents before the interview. The problem is, we only get about three weeks notice before an interview, and (at least in Arlington) all evidence must be submitted one week prior to the interview. Thus, once we get notice of the interview, we have precious little time to complete the case. Adding a further constraint–such as the need for an appointment to file documents–is going to be very challenging. We often don’t know when the evidence packet will be ready, and so it is difficult to know when to schedule an appointment. Also, it is easier for repeat players, like lawyers, to file documents when they are going to the AO for some other reason. If we have to make extra trips to file documents, we may need to pass the expense on to our clients. This will make it more difficult for asylum seekers to afford legal help.

I expect that most lawyers would rather file documents by mail than make an InfoPass appointment. The problem is that evidence filed this way is more likely to get lost, which could result in the interview being rescheduled.

A third problem is that appointment slots are limited, and I fear that many will be filled by asylum seekers who repeatedly appear at the AO to inquire about their cases. While I understand that people are anxious and want to talk to a human being, without some limitation on the frequency that asylum seekers can appear at the AO, others who need appointments may not be able to get them. One (partial) solution here might be to identify questions that are amenable to telephonic or email responses, and then to contact the person prior to the appointment. The AO is hoping to implement such a system, but probably not anytime soon.

To me, the basic issue is that we need knowable, enforceable rules about InfoPass and about the asylum system in general. I’ve written previously about how the AO could make its webpage more useful. If people were more well-informed, they would have less need for InfoPass.

Based on the meeting last week, I think the AO is aware of these (and other) issues. They are open about the fact that the new InfoPass system is a work in progress, and that it will evolve as they learn more about how it is being used and what people need. While I can’t say I am thrilled about the new document filing system, InfoPass for asylum seekers is otherwise a positive development. Hopefully, the AO will continue to upgrade their systems and respond to the needs of stakeholders. If so, I expect they will improve efficiency and help ease the pain for those who are waiting.

Continue reading

186 Comments

On the Morality of Deporting Criminals

by Jason Dzubow

National Public Radio recently reported on the Trump Administration’s efforts to deport Vietnamese refugees with criminal convictions. Currently, Vietnam only accepts deportees who entered the United States after 1995, but the Trump Administration wants to convince Vietnam to accept all of its nationals with removal orders, regardless of when they came to the U.S. If Vietnam agrees, the change could affect more than 7,000 refugees and immigrants, some of whom have been living in the United States for over 40 years. Not surprisingly, negotiations over this issue have stoked severe anxiety in segments of the Vietnamese-American community.

The NPR piece focuses on an Amerasian man named Vu, who was ordered deported due to his 2001 convictions for larceny and assault. The convictions have since been vacated, but the deportation order apparently remains. Amerasians are children of American soldiers and Vietnamese women. They face severe persecution and discrimination in Vietnam, and Vu still fears return to his native land. If Vietnam ultimately agrees to the Trump Administration’s proposal, Vu could be returned to his birth country. “I think about it often and I don’t want to be deported,” Vu says, “I wouldn’t be able to see my children. I would lose everything. I would miss most being around my kids.”

“Seeking forgiveness for old sins? Don’t hold your breath.”

Legally, people like Mr. Vu, who have a removal order, can be deported (assuming their country will accept them, and assuming they cannot come up with a new defense against deportation). But what about morally? When–if ever–is it morally acceptable to deport criminals?

For me at least, this is a difficult question to answer. As a starting point, I must note that it is not easy to apply morality to any aspect of the immigration system. There certainly is a moral component written into the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). For example, to receive asylum and many other immigration benefits, an applicant must show (among other things) that he deserves relief as a matter of discretion. Good people deserve a favorable exercise of discretion; bad people do not. The problem is that, how we define “good” and “bad” bears only a passing relationship to morality, as we might normally imagine it, and so referencing the “moral component” of the INA only gets us so far.

Another problem exists with regard to how the INA delineates gradation of criminal conduct. You would think that the worse your conduct, the more likely you are to be deported, but that ain’t necessarily so. Crimes that might seem more worthy of deportation are sometimes less likely to result in immigration consequences. Put another way, under U.S. immigration law, you might be better off killing your mother than possessing cocaine.

The point is, it is very difficult to understand how morality applies to aliens with criminal convictions, at least when speaking in the abstract. It is easier–at least in my opinion–to approach the problem by looking at a specific case, and working from there. So let’s look at the example of Mr. Vu from the NPR piece.

First off, Mr. Vu’s case is quite sympathetic. His crimes occurred a long time ago, the convictions were vacated, he has U.S.-citizen children, and if deported, he faces persecution. Also, Mr. Vu might argue that his prior crimes were a consequence of his difficult upbringing (and few people have had a more difficult time than Amerasians during the post-war era in Vietnam). In addition, Mr. Vu has been in the United States for a long time, and so perhaps America is more “responsible” than Vietnam for setting him on a criminal path. Finally, as an Amerasian, Mr. Vu would not even exist if the U.S. hadn’t been present in Vietnam, and so this might also constitute a reason that we–and not Vietnam–are responsible for him.

On the other hand, Mr. Vu committed some serious crimes (larceny and assault), which harmed other people. He would likely have been deported in 2001 (per an Immigration Judge’s order), but was able to remain here only because Vietnam was not accepting its nationals for repatriation at that time. Further, as a sovereign nation, we have a right to determine who gets to stay in our country, and Mr. Vu violated that covenant. Worse, Mr. Vu likely came to the U.S. through a program to assist Amerasians. If so, we brought him to our country, only to have him turn around and slap us in the face by committing crimes. Finally, if we give Mr. Vu a pass, won’t that send a signal to other aliens that they can come to our country, commit crimes, and avoid the immigration consequences?

As I see it, there are legitimate reasons to deport Mr. Vu, and legitimate reasons to allow him to stay. Of course, making a moral determination in his case–or any case–hinges on how we balance the competing interests. The all-or-nothing nature of our immigration system compounds the challenge of reaching a fair conclusion: Either Mr. Vu gets deported, or he gets to stay. There is no middle ground.

Though I know where I stand on the case, I am not so sure that there is a correct answer here. Maybe it depends on one’s individual moral code. For what it’s worth, if we could somehow rate criminal-immigration cases, I think Mr. Vu would land on the more sympathetic side of the continuum. So if you believe Mr. Vu should be deported, there are probably few criminal-aliens who you believe deserve to remain in the U.S.

So is it morally right to deport Mr. Vu? Or any person with a criminal conviction?

For me, the answer to these questions is tied to the immigration system in general. I have seen far too many examples where non-citizens and their families are severely harmed for seemingly arbitrary reasons. If we had a more fair, more just, and more rational immigration system, I would have less of a problem with deporting criminals. But given the system that we are stuck with, it is difficult for me to morally justify most deportations. That is doubly true in a case like Mr. Vu’s, where his prior bad behavior has apparently been long overshadowed by his current equities. To deport Mr. Vu and break up his family seems cruel and pointless. But sadly, that is often exactly what we get from our current immigration system.

I hope that the Trump Administration will abandon its plan to remove Vietnamese refugees, especially Amerasians. But if it persists, and if Vietnam agrees, I hope that Mr. Vu–and others like him–will fight to remain here. He has been here for decades, his family is here, and this is his home. Despite his criminal acts, I believe he belongs here. To send him away would be immoral.

Continue reading

144 Comments

Applying for a Work Permit When You Have an Arrest Record

by Jason Dzubow

USCIS recently modified the form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization. The new form, question 30, requires asylum seekers to disclose whether they “have… EVER been arrested for and/or convicted of any crime.” What is the purpose of this question? What if you have been arrested or convicted of a crime? Can you still get an Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”)?

First, this question applies to asylum seekers, whose EAD is based on category c-8. People with asylum, and most others, are not asked about their arrest history when they request an EAD.

Under 8 C.F.R. § 208.7(a)(1), “an applicant for asylum who is not an aggravated felon shall be eligible” for an EAD. This clearly refers to people who have been convicted of an “aggravated felony,” but it presumably also refers to people who admit to having committed an aggravated felony, even if they have not been convicted. The purpose of the question, then, is to determine whether you are an “aggravated felon” (convicted or not) and if so, to deny you an EAD.

So what is an aggravated felony? The term is defined in INA § 101(a)(43), which lists all sorts of crimes that are aggravated felonies. Some of the behavior is quite bad (murder, rape); other behavior seems less severe (passing a bad check, certain illegal gambling offenses). In some cases, a conviction is required. For example, a “theft offense” is an aggravated felony only if the term of imprisonment is at least one year. In other cases, a conviction is not required: If you committed the bad act, you are an aggravated felon.

Even criminals need to work.

On first glance, then, it may seem easy to determine whether someone is an aggravated felon: Just compare the person’s offense with the crimes listed in INA § 101(a)(43). Unfortunately, things are not nearly so simple. Indeed, there is a whole sub-specialty of law–dubbed with the clever portmanteau “Crimmigration”–devoted to analyzing how a criminal offense interacts with the immigration law. The problem is compounded by the fact that criminal laws vary significantly by state and by country, and that we have precious little guidance from the Board of Immigration Appeals or the federal courts. In short, the analysis of whether a particular crime is an aggravated felony can be very complicated and often involves more guess work than seems appropriate for a country where the rule of law is (supposedly) paramount. According to the I-765 instructions, “USCIS will make the determination as to whether your convictions meet the definition of aggravated felony.” Given the complexity of the analysis in some cases, my guess is that USCIS will not always get it right.

All this means that any person who checks the “yes” box for question 30 should be prepared for trouble. Depending on the situation, that trouble could range from delay to outright denial of the EAD.

Who needs to check “yes” for question 30? According to the form itself, you must check “yes” if you were arrested for, or convicted of, any crime (according to the instructions, p. 8, “minor” traffic offenses do not require you to check “yes,” but more serious offenses, including alcohol- or drug-related offenses require a “yes”). What if you were arrested, but it was not for a crime? As I read the form, you could get away with checking “no”. However, the I-765 instructions are a bit different. They read, “For initial and renewal applications, you are required to submit evidence of any arrests and/or convictions.” Thus, even if you were arrested for a political reason (i.e., not a crime), you would have to check “yes”. How to resolve the conflict between the form and the instructions? I do not know. For my clients, I would probably check “no” if the arrest was not for a crime, but I would circle the question on the form and write “see cover letter.” I would then provide an explanation in the cover letter. I would also provide some evidence about the arrest. My concern is that USCIS will accuse the client of lying about an arrest (for a crime or otherwise) and that this would create problems down the line. By providing an explanation, I am trying to protect the client from this danger.

So what happens if you must check “yes” on the I-765 form? First, you will need to get some evidence of the arrest. For a criminal arrest (especially in the U.S.), this would normally consist of the arrest record and the court disposition (the final outcome of the case). Court documents should be certified by the clerk. To get such documents in this country, you would normally contact the court where the case was heard, and ask the clerk for a certified copy of the case. Obtaining such records from overseas will likely be more challenging.

What about for political arrests? USCIS does not provide guidance here, but presumably, you have to get what you can: Court and police documents, lawyer documents, letters from witnesses. Sometimes, people are arrested for a crime, but the arrest is politically motivated. How USCIS will handle such cases, we do not know. But if this is your situation, you would want as much evidence as possible to show that the arrest was pretextual. Maybe letters from people familiar with the case, country condition information (explaining, for example, that the government falsely charges political opponents with crimes) or expert reports would help.

What if the police stopped you, but did not actually arrest you? What about an illegal detention where you were not charged with any crime? Again, it is unclear what to do. Depending on the situation, you could potentially answer “no” to question 30, but I think you need to be careful, as you do not want to be accused later of failing to disclose an arrest. Provide an explanation, and talk to a lawyer if you need help.

Even where a person has an arrest or conviction that is not an aggravated felony, USCIS could potentially deny the EAD. The I-765 instructions note, “USCIS may, in its discretion, deny your application if you have been arrested and/or convicted of any crime.” Thus, even if your arrest or conviction (or admission of a crime) is not an aggravated felony, USCIS could deny the EAD. Presumably, this denial would be based on the discretionary language of INA 208(d)(2) (“An applicant for asylum is not entitled to employment authorization, but such authorization may be provided under regulation by the Attorney General”). This language is somewhat in conflict with the implementing regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 208.7(a)(1), which states that “an applicant for asylum who is not an aggravated felon shall be eligible” for an EAD. How this conflict would ever play out in a lawsuit, I do not know, but my guess is that if USCIS denies an EAD as a matter of discretion, it will be difficult to reverse that decision.

Finally, what if you are denied an EAD due to an arrest or conviction? Potentially, this is a decision that can be appealed (using form I-290B). However, a discretionary denial is unlikely to be reversed (since USCIS has discretion to do as it pleases, within limits), and given the complicated legal analysis associated with some aggravated felony determinations, an appeal of that issue might be difficult (and would likely require help from a lawyer). Given that an appeal is expensive (a whopping $675.00 for the DHS fee), it probably makes sense to consult with a lawyer about whether there is any chance for success.

The big question in my mind is how USCIS will implement this change. What will they do with political arrests? Will they deny EADs for small matters, in the exercise of discretion? For people with arrests, will the EAD be delayed, and for how long? All this remains to be seen. For people with any sort of arrest, I do think it will be important to get court records and certified dispositions (final results) for all arrests. I also think it would be important to present a legal argument in cases where the EAD could be denied as an aggravated felony or as a matter of discretion. In short, if you have to check “yes” on question 30, it is probably best to consult with an attorney to help you present your application for an EAD. This is an unfortunate expense for asylum seekers, who are probably already overburdened, but if you need a work permit, it is probably money well spent.

Continue reading

189 Comments

When the Judge Is a Jerk

by Jason Dzubow

The vast majority of Immigration Judges, DHS attorneys, Asylum Officers, and USCIS officers are professional and respectful. But what if they are not? What do you do then?

First off, I think it is important to understand that the bad officials are a small minority. I’ve been to many interviews and court hearings, and I’ve only ever made one complaint (against a USCIS officer at a Green Card interview). In other words, at least in my experience, government officials in immigration-world are generally pretty good.

Now admittedly, I am a lawyer and I know my clients’ rights and what to expect from “the system.” Pro se (unrepresented) applicants may not receive the same level of respect. They are easier to abuse, and it is more likely that decision-makers will cut corners in cases where the applicant is unable to protect herself.

That said, I am also involved in the BIA Pro Bono Project, where I review a dozen or so unrepresented appeals cases each month. I see the transcript of the Immigration Court case, and I can read how the Immigration Judge and the DHS attorney treated the applicant. While it is fairly common to see Judges and DHS attorneys moving quickly through a pro se hearing, it is also common to see these same officials taking extra time to ensure they are properly adjudicating the case. Once in a while, I see a case where the Judge steamrolled the proceedings to reach a quick decision, but that is the exception. In most cases, even those that were adjudicated quickly, the outcome seems fair, given the available evidence and testimony (one big caveat – many of these pro se cases are not well developed and are lacking in evidence. This is because the cases we review are for individuals who are detained. If these people had access to a lawyer and could better prepare their cases, many—even most—would achieve a better outcome).

The government takes your complaints very seriously.

While outright hostility and rule breaking seem quite rare, adjudicators can sometimes be testy, intimidating or unfriendly. What to do if you have the bad luck of encountering a hostile or impolite decision-maker?

The first thing to do is to remain calm. The demeanor of the decision-maker is often unrelated to the outcome of the case, and we have seen examples where an unfriendly officer issues a positive decision. Remember too that this person is not someone you will likely ever encounter again in your life. All you want from him is a favorable decision. Even if your experience at the interview is unpleasant or frightening, that won’t matter much if the case is granted. If you can keep your cool, answer all the questions, remain polite, and not lose your composure, you increase the likelihood of a good result. Getting angry, or arguing with the decision-maker is unlikely to get you the decision you want.

Second, make your record. This means, if you have something that you think is important to say, you should try to say it. In other words, don’t let an aggressive officer or judge intimidate you into silence. Court hearings and some USCIS interviews are recorded. Asylum Officers are supposed to write down everything you say (and if they do not write down what you say, you can complain to a supervisor). Even if you are ultimately prevented from saying something, if you indicate that you had something else to say, that exchange might be reviewed on appeal (or by a supervisor) and could result in a new trial or interview.

In making your record, you can be explicit. You can say to the judge or officer, “I think you are treating me unfairly because you are not allowing me to talk about X.” Say this politely and calmly, and it might soften the decision-maker’s stance. Say it aggressively, and you will likely harden the decision-maker’s position. I remember one case where the DHS attorney seemed (to me at least) to be taking a very aggressive position towards my asylum-seeker client. Finally, I simply asked (politely) why DHS was so opposed to asylum in the case. The attorney explained his motivation, which helped me better understand the case, and ultimately, the client received asylum.

Third, especially if you are unrepresented, you should write down what happened after the interview or court hearing. When things go wrong, it is important to try to understand what happened, and the more information you have, the better. If you write down what happened immediately, the information is more likely to be accurate. This will be useful if you later want someone else, like a lawyer, to review the case. It is also important if you need to make a formal complaint against the decision-maker.

Finally, if you feel you were subject to unfair treatment, you can make a complaint. Different forums have different procedures for complaining. For example, if you are with an Asylum Officer, you can ask to speak with a supervisor. You do this during the interview itself by telling the Asylum Officer that you would like to speak to a supervisor. For an Immigration Court case, you would typically contact the judge’s supervisor (called the Assistant Chief Immigration Judge) after the court hearing, or–more typically–you would just file an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Periodically, I receive decisions that I think are wrong or unfair, but my clients have never been subject to treatment by an Asylum Officer or Judge that warranted a complaint. I did make a complaint once about a USCIS officer. I spoke to the officer’s supervisor immediately after the interview, and then sent a written complaint directly to the supervisor. I do not know whether the officer herself was informed of the complaint (I never saw her again), but I do know that my client’s case was approved in short order.

Most Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers are professional and respectful, and so hopefully, you will never encounter an official who is treating you unfairly. But if you do, keep calm, remain respectful, and politely make the points you need to make. This is the best way to maximize your chances for a positive decision.

Continue reading

175 Comments

The Emotional Toll of Asylum Lawyering

by Jason Dzubow

A recent paper by Neil Graffin, a Lecturer in International Law at the Open University, explores the emotional impact of working as an asylum lawyer. As you might expect, the study found that those of us who represent asylum seekers suffer from burnout and emotional stress. As a “protective mechanism,” we tend to detach ourselves from our clients, and we sometimes become “cynical or disbelieving of client narratives.” More surprising, perhaps, the author found that this “complex reaction” had both positive and negative effects in terms of case outcomes. The paper concludes that “more should be done to protect practitioners working in this area of law,” since “we cannot discharge our duties to asylum claimants, without protecting those who deliver assistance in protecting their rights.”

In researching his paper, Professor Graffin spoke to nine asylum advocates in England and one in the Republic of Ireland. The interviewees had a wide range of experience in the field, from one year to 30 years. Some worked for private firms; others for non-profits.

As we all know, we Yanks tend to be a lot tougher than the wilting flowers in England. Even so, Professor Graffin’s findings largely track with my own experience and that of my colleagues on this side of the pond. So as far as I can tell, the emotional impact of representing asylum seekers is essentially the same for lawyers in the U.S. and for our more fragile British cousins.

It seems to me that Professor Graffin’s findings can be divided into two broad categories: Effects on lawyers caused by dealing with individual clients, and effects caused by “the system.”

Corporate Lawyers

At the individual level, dealing with traumatized asylum applicants is often “emotionally demanding” and “can have a negative emotional impact on practitioners, manifesting in self-reported burnout and emotional stress.” It can also lead practitioners to develop a cynical or disbelieving attitude towards some clients.

This type of skepticism does not necessarily have a negative effect on case outcomes, however. On the contrary, some study participants observed that “having a cynical or disbelieving attitude could make them better practitioners” because it helped them get “into the minds of the ‘suspicious decision-maker’” and “to spot issues of concern in their claimant’s narratives.” From my own perspective, a healthy skepticism towards our clients’ claims is crucial. We need to imagine how our clients’ stories will be received by government decision-makers and anticipate weaknesses in their cases.

Study participants also spoke about the issue of secondary trauma, which comes from “dealing with individuals on a daily basis who have experienced gross and traumatic violations of their human rights.” One common defensive mechanism for practitioners was to distance ourselves from our clients. Too much distance leads to depersonalization, but too little can lead to burnout. The key is balance: We should aim to be “sympathetic but detached.”

Tax Lawyers

In my own practice, I often deal with people who have been traumatized. Some have been physically harmed or threated. Others have lost loved ones. Still others are suffering due to separation from family members. While I am sympathetic to my clients, I don’t believe that the main emotional impact I face relates to these micro-level issues. For me, at least, the bigger stress-inducer is the system itself: Too many cases, not enough time, too much bureaucracy, too little control. Professor Graffin also discusses these and other macro-level issues.

One big issue for me, and for the participants in Professor Graffin’s study, is volume. “Heavy caseloads… were cited as a particular concern amongst participants.” This was an issue for non-profits, which are under increasing pressure to do more with less, and for private practitioners like me, who aim to serve the asylum-seeker community and make a living in the process. “On the one hand, while having a smaller amount of cases was described as economically unviable, having too large a caseload created unmanageable pressure on the firm.”

Another issue involves unfavorable changes to the law. Both Britain and the U.S. (and many other countries) are experiencing an anti-refugee moment. Changes in the law have made it more difficult for us to help our clients. Referencing the “constant downgrading of rights,” one long-term practitioner in Professor Graffin’s study notes that for her, it is “easier to cope with [extremely traumatized clients] than the overall feeling that [she] was being disabled as a lawyer.” I agree. Lawyers are trained to learn the law and help our clients navigate the system. But lately, in the U.S., the government has been throwing up nonsensical bureaucratic barriers that make our jobs more difficult. These barriers are not legal barriers, but rather procedural hurdles. So an application that previously took, say, two hours to complete, now takes three hours. To me, this is a deliberate and arbitrary attempt to reduce immigration by making “the system” harder. I have been reluctant to pass on the costs of the additional work to my clients, as I feel that this would almost make me complicit in the government’s scheme. The problem, however, is that this leads to increased stress for my office mates and me.

Asylum Lawyer

Another job of a lawyer is to explain how the system works. If you file a claim for asylum, for example, there should be a predictable series of events that follows. Now-a-days, there is much less predictability in the system. This is in large part due to these same bureaucratic barriers. It is also due to the general dysfunctionality of the system. The end result, though, is that we lawyers have less power to influence outcomes than we should, and this also increases stress levels.

A final issue discussed in Professor Graffin’s paper is the effect of the over-all hostile environment towards asylum seekers. A number of the participants discussed how “negativity towards asylum claimants within some sections of society had an impact on them.” In an ideal world, human rights would be non-partisan. But of course, our world is far from ideal. The rhetoric in the United States and Great Britain is frequently cruel, and quite often untrue. While I can understand why such an environment can be demoralizing for asylum practitioners, I do not think it affects me that way. If anything, it has energized me to work harder for my clients. It is also one of the reasons we held the Refugee Ball back in 2017.

Finally, I of course agree with Professor Graffin’s recommendation that we provide more support for asylum practitioners, “including training and education in secondary trauma and burnout, as well as the potential for structural re-design to support individuals who hear traumatic narratives on a regular basis.” But the unfortunate fact is that most practitioners—including me—do not have time for additional training, and our current government is not about to take action to make our lives any easier. For now, we just have to keep on keepin’ on.

A few last points that were not directly mentioned in the paper: For me, an important coping mechanism is to have a sense of humor (maybe gallows humor) about the whole system. It is not always easy, but it gets me through the day. It is also nice to know that we asylum lawyers are not alone, and that all of us in the system are struggling with similar issues. So send your good vibes, and we will keep moving forward together.

Continue reading

208 Comments

Some Great Immigration and Refugee Books for Kids

by Jason Dzubow

In my house, we have young children who love books. We have to read to them all the time (at breakfast, at dinner, before bed – oy, it makes me crazy). Below are some books we’ve read that relate to my profession: Asylum and immigration. I’ve also included a few books that have crossed my desk for older kids or teens.

Of course, these subjects can be pretty heavy. How do you talk to young children about fleeing home, moving to a new place, separation from family? Thankfully, all this is outside my own children’s experience. But I do think it is important for them to learn about it. In part, because I work with refugees, but mostly, because it is a reality for many people, and children need to understand their world.

I must admit that the below list is pretty random. People gave us these books, or we found them at the library. If you’re looking for a more comprehensive list, check out BRYCS (Bridging Refugee Youth & Children’s Services), the “What Do We Do All Day?“ blog, and the Institute for Humane Education. But, for what it’s worth, here is my reading list for small, medium, and large children interested in a very grown-up issue:

Reading about the refugee experience can be scary.

Hannah Is My Name by Belle Yang (2004) – This is the story of a young girl who moves with her parents from Taiwan to San Francisco in the 1960s. She gives up her Chinese name, Na-Li, and takes an American name: Hannah. The girl and her family struggle in America while waiting and waiting for their green cards. A lawyer (or notario?) named Mr. Choo has helped the family with their paperwork, but there seems to be no progress and the family is stuck waiting for a decision (sound familiar?). At one point, the father has to escape from INS agents. This is a brightly colored book that really gave my children some idea about what I do in the office (waiting and more waiting). This book is probably appropriate for pre-school and elementary school-age children.

The Arrival by Shaun Tan (2007) – This is a graphic novel without words. It is probably more appropriate for middle and high school-age kids, but since I love it, I read it (assuming you can “read” a book with no words) to my elementary school-age children. The illustrations in the book are magnificent, and convey a sense of moving to a new, unfamiliar land. The book tells the story of a family living in a repressive and dangerous city. The father moves to a strange new country, where he must adapt, find work, and send for his family. This is probably my favorite illustrated book about the refugee experience. It is a moving and positive story about how people can help each other.

How I learned Geography by Uri Shulevitz (2008) – When he was four years old, author Uri Shulevitz and his family fled Poland and found refuge in Central Asia. It was World War II, and conditions in their new home were bleak. They barely had enough to eat, and so when Uri’s father spends the family’s dinner money on a large world map, Uri is understandably angry (and hungry). This book tells the story of how the young author uses the map and his imagination to escape his difficult existence and “explore” the world. In the end, Uri comes to appreciate his father’s wisdom. This is a beautifully illustrated and poetic book, which covers a challenging topic in a way that elementary-age children can understand and appreciate.

Two While Rabbits by Jairo Buitrago and Rafael Yockteng (2015) – This beautifully illustrated book tells the story of a little girl and her father who are traveling from Central America to the United States. Sometimes, they stop so that the father can work to earn more money for their trip. Why they are traveling and whether they reach their destination, we do not know. But the sights and experiences of the migration are shown from the perspective of the young girl, who spends her time counting the people, animals, and objects she encounters on the journey. As adults, we see a dangerous ride atop a freight train, menacing soldiers or a treacherous boat ride across a wide river. The girl in the story is barely aware of the danger. She focuses more on the beauty she encounters on her trip. There is a lot going on in this book visually, and my children enjoyed talking about the pictures and wondering about the girl’s journey. This story is appropriate for pre-school and elementary-age children.

Illegal by Eoin Colfer, Andrew Donkin, and Giovanni Rigano (2018) – This graphic novel is for teens or adults. I read it, but my children are still too young for a story like this. Illegal tells the story of two brothers who leave Niger, cross the Sahara, and try to reach Europe. The story is fiction, but the incidents portrayed are taken from real-life events. The book gives readers an idea about the difficult and very dangerous journey that many people take from Sub-Saharan Africa to Europe. The themes are necessarily mature, and though the worst issues (such as rape and murder) are not directly shown, there are plenty of scary incidents, including the deaths of many migrants. This is a sad, yet hopeful tale, which humanizes people who are too often treated as less than human.

An Olympic Dream: The Story of Samia Yusuf Omar by Reinhardt Kleist (2015) – This graphic novel is similar to Illegal, with a greater emphasis on the sad than the hopeful. It tells the true story of Samia Yusuf Omar, who represented Somalia in the 2008 Olympics. After the Games, she returned to her country where opportunities to train–especially for women–were limited (to put it mildly). To escape the threats and fulfill her dream of returning to the Olympics, she fled Somalia for Europe. Sadly, Samia died en route (and by the way, I am not really spoiling the story here–Samia’s death is described in the book’s introduction). While the story is depressing, the author conveys the sense of the journey and does a good job humanizing his subject. This book is appropriate for teens and adults.

Of course, this is just a sampling of the many books that discuss migration and asylum. What these books have in common is that they tell a very human story–the struggle for safety and freedom in a difficult and dangerous world. In this respect, these books form a powerful counterbalance to the dehumanizing narrative of asylum seekers as nefarious “others.” While these stories can be challenging, they are also uplifting, and they help children (and adults) better understand our world.

Continue reading

153 Comments

The Instructions for the I-589 Asylum Form: An Invaluable Tool, but Not the Last Word

by Jason Dzubow

This posting is by Elizabeth Rosenman, a Seattle asylum attorney and a member of Northwest Immigrant Rights Project’s pro bono panel. A former editor of UCLA’s law review, she has a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University. Among other publications, she has written for The Seattle Times, the Los Angeles Times, and most recently, The Hill. 

When I’m helping a client prepare his I-589, the first thing I do is download the 10-page application, officially called the “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Form I-589 Application for Asylum,” from the USCIS website. The first half of the I-589 asks simple biographical questions and the second half probes for responses intended to tease out whether the applicant likely qualifies for asylum or is possibly barred from staying here permanently.

The form is written in plain English and even the questions that call for long answers are straightforward. Everything is self-explanatory. That’s why it’s tempting to skip over another document on the same website called “Instructions for I-589” — a 14-page document that is far denser than the form it’s supposed to clarify.

Read the instructions.

Elizabeth Rosenman

The first time I did, I was stunned by how helpful they were. The instructions contain both a concise tutorial on asylum law and a superb how-to manual for preparing an entire asylum case, not just filling out the I-589.

There’s also a lot of practical stuff that isn’t immediately obvious to asylum seekers and inexperienced lawyers: The one-year time limit for submitting the I-589 in most circumstances, the rule that the form has to be either typed or filled out in black–not blue–ink, and the requirement that an asylum seeker can’t leave the U.S., even for an emergency, without prior approval unless he wants to forfeit his claim.

Only about two pages of the instructions actually offer help filling out the I-589, but who cares? The document is an invaluable legal tool. And it’s free. But there’s a flip side. The instructions are also confusing, misleading, annoying, and bizarre. My take: Reading the instructions is a must, but following them all is a big mistake.

Consider this–even before you finish the first sentence, you realize there’s an obvious problem. The instructions, like the I-589, are only printed in English. Nobody in our government appears to care that the vast majority of asylum seekers aren’t native English speakers.

Just as bad, the instructions leave out some basic information, like where asylum seekers temporarily living in certain states–California, Nevada, and Pennsylvania–should send the I-589 to get the process rolling. Immigration officials have divided each of these states into two parts, but the instructions don’t explain where the dividing line is.

Take California. The instructions say that affirmative asylum seekers living in Northern Californian should send their completed I-589 to a post office box in Lincoln, Nebraska. Those in Southern California are told to send their asylum applications to Laguna Niguel, California (asylum seekers in court follow a different set of rules). Is Fresno considered north or south? How about Bakersfield? The instructions are silent. Instead, a few phone numbers are listed in the instructions for the asylum seeker or her lawyer to call with questions. My clients have all lived in Washington State, so this hasn’t been an issue for me. But I couldn’t resist calling the first phone number listed, the one for USCIS’s National Customer Service Center, to see how hard it would be to get an answer.

Very hard, if you aren’t an attorney, it turns out. That general phone number has recorded messages for almost any immigration problem I’ve ever heard of, except the I-589 address question. I spent several minutes trying to get a customer care representative on the line to talk me through the problem. I couldn’t figure out how to do that. Every time I pushed a keypad number I thought would get me to a person, I instead got a recorded voice that referred me to the USCIS general website. So I called back again, this time taking advantage of the one keypad prompt that’s only for attorneys. In less than two minutes, a USCIS employee came on the line and cheerfully offered to help. Instantly, she pulled up a directory of which California counties were included in one address or the other.

“Why not list this on the I-589 instructions pages?” I asked. “We don’t really know why they wouldn’t,” she said. Me either. Given a chance, I’m not sure I could dream up a way to make the task of addressing an I-589 more complicated than the one our government has already put in place.

Another complaint: The instructions leave out some key facts. For instance, they note that people who are granted asylum “may eventually adjust to lawful permanent resident status.” That means an asylum seeker who is granted asylum may, a year later, apply for a green card. So what’s the big deal? The instructions omit the most important part–an asylee is also eligible to apply to become a U.S. citizen, with all of the rights and protections that come with citizenship, four years after getting a green card. He’d probably figure the citizenship part out somewhere along the way. Why not let him know from the start?

Then there’s an omission that I find mean spirited and annoying: The instructions never mention that documents submitted as part of an asylum case don’t need to be notarized. All of my clients have needlessly paid money to a Notary Public to translate a few documents before I began representing them. They could have instead had a friend do the translating and used the extra money to buy food or bus fare.

Even more troubling, the instructions contain some misleading advice. At one point, they say “you are strongly urged to attach additional written statements and documents to support your claim.” “Strongly urged” sounds scary. Don’t worry. I’ve ignored that instruction for every client. Let me explain.

Remember that rule about asylum seekers not being allowed to request work authorization until 150 days after USCIS receives the I-589? That clock starts ticking whether or not an asylum applicant submits all of his supporting documents with the I-589 or just the bare I-589. Since all of my clients are anxious to get legal work authorization, I quickly fill out and submit the I-589 to get the 150-day clock going.

Then, after it’s in the mail, I begin the long process of gathering the supporting documents. I don’t send in those documents, which make up the bulk of the asylum case, until closer to the date of a client’s court hearing or asylum interview.

Two paragraphs later, the instructions give horrible advice: “You can amend or supplement your application at the time of your asylum interview with an asylum officer and at your hearing in immigration court….” That’s not true. Asylum officers and immigration judges have various rules about when evidence is due. If an asylum seeker misses that cutoff, he may be barred from submitting crucial documents later. This isn’t a problem for a lawyer who has been through the rigmarole a few times and is aware of the rules. But what about an asylum seeker who has been unable to obtain a lawyer?

Then there’s this bizarre fact: The instructions explain that an asylum seeker attending an interview who doesn’t speak English fluently must bring an interpreter and cover the cost. But if the asylum seeker is hearing impaired, that’s a different story. In that instance, the government will supply a sign language interpreter in any language–on the house.

Enough complaining. Even though I’m aware of most potential pitfalls, I always re-read the instructions the night before meeting with a client to fill out an I-589. They are updated frequently without prior warning–oops, another complaint–so I always check to see if anything important has changed.

Continue reading

145 Comments

You Can Now Check Your Asylum Case Status Online!

by Jason Dzubow

Last week, I wrote about my suggestions for a new Asylum Office website. In that post, I gave short shrift to a new development: For affirmative asylum applicants, it is now possible to check your asylum case online at the USCIS website. This development is actually pretty significant, and will be particularly helpful for those who set up an account with USCIS in order to receive automatic case updates.

Here’s how it works: If you filed affirmatively for asylum–meaning, you filed a case with the Asylum Office–you should have received a receipt with an Alien number (a nine-digit number usually starting with 0 or 2) and a receipt number (three letters followed by a 10-digit number; the first letter is “Z”). You can now enter the receipt number into the USCIS Check Case Status web page and obtain information about your case.

I’ve plugged in several of my clients’ receipt numbers to get an idea of how the system works. After you enter the receipt number, you will receive a message about your case. The messages I saw have between one and four paragraphs, depending on the stage of the case.

The USCIS computer team celebrates as their agency enters the 20th Century.

The first paragraph gives information about the status of the case. This is discussed more below.

The second and third paragraphs of the message discuss the “Asylum Clock” and eligibility for an employment authorization document or EAD. In short, once an asylum case is received, the “Clock” starts. After the Clock reaches 150 days, a person may apply for an EAD, but the Clock must reach 180 days in order for USCIS to actually issue the EAD. If a person delays her case (by skipping an appointment, for example), it could cause the Clock to stop. Buried in the middle of the second paragraph is the number of days that have elapsed on your Asylum Clock and a statement about whether your Clock is still running. This is quite helpful, as it is easy to know when to apply for your EAD (on or after day 150, assuming the Clock is still running). One quibble, if I may: It would be nice to see this information more prominently displayed, as it is kind-of hidden in an otherwise boilerplate paragraph.

The final paragraph contains information about what to do if you move (file form AR-11).

There are different messages generated, depending on the status of the case. After the case is filed and received, the message reads, “The next step in your application is an in-person interview. Once your interview is scheduled, you will receive an interview notice in the mail and this case status will change. If you have an attorney or accredited representative on file, this individual will also receive a copy of the interview notice in the mail.” Another quibble: This message appears even if the biometrics (fingerprint and photo) appointment letter has been mailed out. In other words, at least for the case I checked, the system does not indicate that a biometrics letter was sent. Hopefully, USCIS will include this information as it continues to update the online system.

Once the interview is scheduled, the message states, “Your interview has been scheduled. You will receive an interview notice at the mailing address we have on file. If you have listed family members as dependents on your application, you must bring them to your interview. If you cannot communicate effectively in English, you must bring an interpreter. If you have an attorney or accredited representative and come without that representative, we will ask you to sign a form stating you agree to be interviewed without that representative present.” Further down the page, the message indicates that you can reschedule the interview. However, there is no information about how to contact the Asylum Office to reschedule. Such information would be helpful, even if it is only a link to the (woefully inadequate) Asylum Office website (which also does not tell you how to reschedule an appointment). By the way, it seems that the interview message is the same whether it is a first interview or a rescheduled interview.

If the interview has taken place, but there is not yet a decision, the message states, “You completed your interview with USCIS. The time it takes for USCIS to give you a decision after completion of an interview may vary. An officer told you at the end of your interview if you needed to return to the office to pick-up your decision on a specific/scheduled date, or if your decision would be mailed to you.” This same message seems to appear regardless of how long the decision has been pending. For example, I checked one of my long-delayed cases (filed over five years ago!). I suspect that the case is being held up due to a TRIG (Terrorism Related Inadmissibility Grounds) bar–the client was kidnapped and paid money to the bad guys to get released (this is an example of how the TRIG bar treats the victims of terrorism as if they were terrorists). The client was interviewed (about four years ago), but there is still no decision. For this client, I received the same Case Status message as for a client who was interviewed three months ago (and who does not have any TRIG issues).

Once a decision has been made, the message reads, “We reached a decision in your case. You should expect to receive the decision in the mail shortly. You must follow the instructions in your decision letter as to what you should do next.” If the decision was picked up, the message reads, “We reached a decision in your application. You recently picked up this decision at our office. You must follow the instructions in your decision letter as to what you should do next.” Whether the case was granted, denied or referred to Immigration Court, the message was basically the same. In other words, you cannot determine the outcome of the case based on the online message.

I did not have any cases with a pending Notice of Intent to Deny, so I do not know if the online system indicates whether such a letter has been mailed out. I hope it does, as applicant’s only have 16 days to respond to a NOID, so the earlier they know about it, the better.

I also checked an application that was closed. The message states, “We closed your application and notified you of the reason in the decision letter we mailed to the address we have on file for you. You must contact the office that has been handling your application if you believe your application should not have been closed.” Such a message means that the case is no longer with the Asylum Office. In our client’s case, the person had previously been before an Immigration Judge, and the Asylum Office determined that it did not have jurisdiction.

Probably the best part about the new system is that you can set up an account with USCIS so that you receive automatic updates by email or text message. In this way, you will know when to expect your interview notice or decision. And here’s a bonus: If you sign up for Informed Delivery with the U.S. Post Office, you will get a scan of all mail coming to your house, so you will know exactly when your notifications (and all your other mail) are arriving. Informed Delivery is not available everywhere, but you can check the USPS website to see whether you are eligible.

Finally, one last issue: The USCIS website is only in English. There are a limited number of messages that appear when you check your receipt, and so it really shouldn’t be that burdensome to create messages in other languages (Spanish being the most obvious). I am not sure that this is under consideration, but it would be very helpful.

So that’s about it. The new system is a good start, especially if you get automatic updates, but it’s not a substitute for a more informative Asylum Office website, as I discussed last week. Hopefully, USCIS will continue to improve it’s online presence, and continue to improve the process for asylum seekers and everyone else in the system.

Continue reading

235 Comments

Dear Asylum Division: I’ve Re-Designed Your Webpage. You’re Welcome.

by Jason Dzubow

Dear Asylum Division:

These days, I don’t like to criticize you. I know that you’re under a lot of pressure from the political higher-ups who hate the whole “asylum thing.” But let’s face it–your website stinks. Fortunately, help is at hand. I’ve taken the liberty of creating a new website, which will benefit not only beleaguered asylum seekers, but also the hardworking folks at the various Asylum Offices.

And yes, I know that the Asylum Division is in the process of redesigning its online presence. It is now possible to get some basic information about an asylum case–including how many days have elapsed on the Asylum Clock–by entering the receipt number into the USCIS website (the receipt number is listed on the asylum receipt and starts with the letter Z).

Also, it should soon be possible to obtain an Info Pass appointment at the local asylum offices. If this system works, it will be better than what we have now (show up and hope for the best). But I’m worried that the asylum Info Pass will be as problematic as the current USCIS Info Pass system–these days, it’s easier to score Hamilton tickets than to get a USCIS Info Pass appointment.

Rumor has it that the Asylum Division is powered by a C-64.

That’s the (more or less) good news. The bad news is that the Asylum Office Locator has been changed as well, and it’s less useful now than it was before. The page still contains the addresses and office hours of the local asylum offices, and where to mail an initial I-589 (which varies depending where in the U.S. you live). But other contact information–email addresses and phone numbers–that appeared in the previous iteration of the website is now absent.

I get it–the Asylum Offices want to save time by preventing people from calling or emailing (I want to do this too), but now the only way to communicate with them is to go in person (difficult, especially for people who live far from the office) or send a letter (yes, a letter, like snail mail). The old email addresses still work, and I imagine the phone numbers do to (I haven’t tried to call the Asylum Office main number in years, as they rarely answer), but if you don’t have that information already, you’re basically out of luck.

All these changes are a mixed bag, but more can be done. The main problem with the current situation is the lack of available information. This is bad for asylum seekers, who are left in the dark, but it’s also bad for the Asylum Office staff, who have to respond to repeated requests for general information (which perhaps explains why certain contact information was removed from the website). My theory is this: If the website answered more questions, asylum seekers would be more informed, less stressed out, and less likely to contact the Asylum Office for help. This is what we in the business call a win-win.

So I’ve designed a new website for you. It’s attached below as a PDF. There are two parts–the Main Asylum Office Webpage and the Local Asylum Office Webpage. I’ve written it in outline format because I thought that would be easier to understand. Also, for the life of me, I can’t figure out how to make a flow chart (sad, as I was once fluent in Fortran).

The main page is designed to tell asylum seekers how to file, and to explain the process. It also provides links to help people find information they need, and answers some common questions. The local page provides specific information about a person’s local asylum office, including instructions for filing evidence, and information about expediting and short listing a case. If this information is available in multiple languages, that would also be a plus.

To be sure, my design, while quite lovely, is pretty basic and needs some work, but the main point is this–The Asylum Division should have a website that better serves asylum seekers. So, my friends at the Asylum Division, I proudly present you with your new Asylum Division Website Outline! I assume it will be up and running shortly.

You’re welcome, Jason

Continue reading

154 Comments

The Irony and the Agony of a Government Shutdown

by Jason Dzubow

As you may have heard, parts of the federal government are closed for business. After two years of Republican inaction on “the wall,” somehow President Trump has decided that now is the time to shut the government down in an effort to “permanently fix the problem on the Southern Border.” Let’s look at the effect of the shutdown on immigration generally, and on asylum more particularly.

In immigration world, the biggest–and most ironic–effect of the shutdown has been to close most of the nation’s Immigration Courts. Courts that handle detained cases are still operating normally, but non-detained courts are closed. The irony is that shuttering the courts will have the effect of delaying the deportation of many aliens. On average (and based on current projections for FY2019), Immigration Judges will deport about 676 people per day. If we remove detained cases from the mix (very roughly speaking, detained cases make up about 13% of all Immigration Court cases), we can estimate that for each day the government is shut down, 588 people are spared from deportation. Given the long backlog in Immigration Court, most people with postponed cases will probably not return to court for another year or two, and so such people will be able to remain the U.S. far longer thanks to the shutdown.

$5,700,000,000 wall vs. $79 ladder.

Also from the Irony Department: The lapse in government funding means that Border Patrol agents–the very people who are supposed to guard our Southern border–will not be paid until the shutdown ends. As you can imagine, this is not great for morale. In addition, the E-Verify System, which allows employers to check whether a particular person is authorized to work, is down. If this “electronic wall” is not working, some “illegals” may be able to work. These results seems contrary to Mr. Trump’s stated goals of deporting more people and fixing the broken immigration system, but what else is new?

Of course, many asylum seekers will not be very happy about having their court cases delayed. Some have been waiting years for a decision, all the while separated from family members and living with great uncertainty. For such people and their families, the delay is heartbreaking.

To check on the status of the Immigration Courts, you can visit the EOIR website, which will indicate whether operations have resumed. If your court case is postponed due to the shutdown, the case will be rescheduled once the lapse in funding has been resolved. From EOIR:

Non-detained docket cases will be reset for a later date after funding resumes. Immigration courts will issue an updated notice of hearing to respondents or, if applicable, respondents’ representatives of record for each reset hearing.

In other words, the Immigration Court will send you or your lawyer a written notice for the new hearing date. You can also check the Immigration Court hotline, which indicates when your next hearing is scheduled. The phone number is 800-898-7180. This is a computer system; not a person. When it answers, follow the instructions and, when prompted, enter your Alien number. The system will tell you your next hearing date. Unfortunately, the hotline will not be updated during the shutdown, but once the situation is resolved, you can check for your next appointment (whether cancelled Individual Hearing dates will be set for another Individual Hearing or a Master Calendar Hearing, we do not yet know).

What if you want to file documents, evidence or a change of address with the Immigration Court? Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) are accepting filings for detained cases. As I understand, most courts are also accepting filings for non-detained cases, but such filings will not be acted upon. The problem is that such filings may get lost in the avalanche of documents that the courts receive. This problem will be especially acute if the shutdown drags on for weeks or months. My advice: If you have a deadline, file your documents, but make sure to keep a copy for yourself and have evidence that you filed (if you can file in-person, the clerk will stamp your copy of the documents; if you file by mail, you should keep a copy of the certified mailing receipt). If you do not have a deadline or an emergency, it is probably better to wait until the shutdown ends before filing any documents with an Immigration Court or the BIA.

For asylum seekers and immigrants who do not have court cases, the shutdown is far less consequential. USCIS obtains its budget from “customer fees” (i.e., money you pay for your green card, work permit, etc.), and so the lapse in government funding is not an issue (there is currently no fee for asylum, but USCIS customer fees fund the Asylum Offices). As a result, the Asylum Offices, USCIS offices, and Application Support Centers (the place that takes your fingerprints) are all operating normally. While this is unlikely to change, there is no harm in double checking before you make the trek to your appointment. You can do that here.

One final question is, How long will the shutdown last? Of course, we do not know. The longest shutdown to date occurred during President Clinton’s term, and lasted 21 days. The current shutdown began on December 22, 2018, and so as of this writing, we are approaching Mr. Clinton’s (or more accurately, Newt Gingrich’s) record. The shutdown is inflicting much damage on our country, including to some immigrants and asylum seekers. Let’s hope that our leaders can bring an end to the impasse as soon as possible.

Continue reading

230 Comments

Fees for Asylum? How About Premium Processing Instead?

by Jason Dzubow

According to recent reports, the Trump Administration is considering charging $50.00 to apply for asylum in the United States. If the purpose of this fee is to dissuade people from seeking asylum, it is a stupid and cruel idea, which may violate our treaty obligations. If the purpose is to raise money to help cover the costs of the asylum process, it is merely a stupid idea.

Here is what we know so far. The Trump Administration is working on a new regulation that would require applicants who are already residing in the United States to pay $50.00 to apply for asylum. “The fee would not apply to those who claim a fear of persecution at ports of entry or those who apply for the protections while in deportation proceedings.” “There would be no waiver of the fee for those who cannot afford to pay the $50.” Currently, of course, there is no fee to file for asylum.

Why is this idea so dumb?

If the fee is meant to deter people from filing for asylum, few will be dissuaded by such a low amount. The only applicants who would potentially be blocked by this fee are those who are particularly vulnerable, such as children. In most such cases, non-profit organizations would probably cover the costs, but this will be burdensome for the non-profits, many of which are already suffering from insufficient resources. So in practical terms, this fee would block few people from asylum, but it would create a further strain on organizations that assist asylum seekers.

Wait in line for asylum with the hoi polloi? Never!

To the extent that anyone is blocked from asylum by this new policy, the fee might violate our treaty obligations (not to mention our moral responsibility to people fleeing harm). For example, Article 25 of the Refugee Convention contemplates “exceptional treatment” for indigent asylum seekers, and so people blocked by the fee would have grounds for a suit against the federal government.

Also, the idea of charging a nominal fee to people fleeing harm is just plain cruel. Many asylum seekers have suffered past harm, and they are already fearful and traumatized. The legal changes and malicious rhetoric of the Trump Administration have already increased the stress level for these vulnerable people. A filing fee would be one more indicator of how unwelcome asylum applicants are.

In addition, asylum seekers often must wait for many months before they can obtain permission to work in the United States. Talk to most asylum seekers, and you will hear stories of great financial difficulty. Many have lost property and assets at home, and are living off their savings or the goodwill of family and friends. A filing fee under these circumstances is one more strain on people who are often in dire financial straits.

Finally, asylum seekers already pay plenty of fees. Although they do not pay directly for the asylum form, they often employ lawyers and experts, or have to pay for mailing and copying fees for their evidence, and for transportation to their interview. In addition, for people granted asylum, there is the fee for the green card (currently $1,225.00) and for U.S. citizenship ($725.00). Obtaining status in the United States is not cheap, and given that they have to pay for other steps in the process, asylum seekers are pulling their weight.

If the purpose of the fee is to offset the government’s costs, perhaps there is a better way. First of all, the $50.00 fee will do little to help the government. Given that the fee will only apply to certain affirmative asylum applicants, the amount of money generated will not be significant. Based on the current number of cases filed, a $50.00 fee would add less than $5 million to the government’s coffers per year. I have not been able to find recent data on USCIS’s budget, which is almost entirely funded by user fees, but in 2008, that budget was $2.6 billion. Presumably, it is more today. Even using the 2008 figure, $5 million represents less than 0.2% of the total.

If the government wants to make a profit from asylum seekers, maybe an alternative solution is to allow “premium processing” for asylum cases. Certain types of applications allow the alien to pay an additional fee (currently $1,410.00) to have their case processed more quickly. Some asylum seekers would probably be able to afford such a fee (remember, asylum seekers have made their own way to the U.S., usually by paying for transportation and sometimes by paying a smuggler). So perhaps there is room here to make a deal (I know how much President Trump loves a good deal).

I’ve previously spoken about this idea to the muckety-mucks at the Asylum Division (and I’ve written about it here as well). I think the main objection was optics–it looks bad to charge asylum seekers a fee, and it looks bad to allow asylum seekers with money to jump ahead of those without. I get that. But now we are in a new world. The government seems to be moving forward with fees for asylum seekers. If so, at least one of these objections is off the table.

As for the fairness argument (people with money should not be processed before people without money), in my opinion, that fails as well. Name one thing about asylum that is fair? The idea of fairness just doesn’t apply to asylum, so why apply it to premium processing? Earlier this year, we switched from FIFO to LIFO, so people who apply today are often interviewed before people who have been waiting for years. Is that fair? Asylum seekers with money hire fancy lawyers to help with their cases. This isn’t fair either. So for me, at least, the fairness argument falls flat.

This is especially so given that allowing “rich” asylum applicants to pay a fee would benefit everyone in the system. People who could pay the fee would benefit the most, and their cases would move the fastest. But the infusion of money into the system and the removal of “premium” cases from the queue would benefit everyone. Even those who do not pay should see their cases processed faster than they are moving today.

So instead of charging all applicants, including indigent applicants, $50.00 to file for asylum, let’s allow those who can afford it to pay for premium processing ($1,410.00 or some other fee that makes sense). This will offset costs for the government and benefit all asylum seekers.

Continue reading

118 Comments

It’s Getting Harder to Win Asylum in Court, at Least for Some Applicants

by Jason Dzubow

The indefatigable folks at TRAC Immigration have issued a new report about our nation’s Immigration Courts, and the news is not encouraging: Overall asylum denial rates are the highest we’ve seen in almost two decades. As always with asylum numbers, things are not quite so simple, so let’s take a look at what’s going on.

Fiscal Year 2018 (which ended on September 30, 2018) was noteworthy for several reasons. First, the asylum denial rate reached 65%. This caps a six year trend of increasing denial rates and represents the highest rate of denial in 20 years (between 1986 and 1999, denial rates ranged from 68% to 89%). In some ways, the news from FY2018 is worse than the average denial rate indicates. If you look at TRAC’s month-to-month chart, you can see that denial rates spiked between June 2018 and the end of the fiscal year. Thus, in the last few months of the fiscal year, denial rates were pushing 70%.

Rejection rates also went up after each Immigration Judge received a fancy new “Denied” stamp.

A second way that FY2018 stands out is that Immigration Courts adjudicated more asylum cases than any prior year: 42,224. This figure represents significantly more decisions than FY2017 (30,253) or FY2016 (22,318). Indeed, this is the most asylum cases decided in any one year since at least 1986 (I could not find data older than that).

Despite the higher denial rates, there is a silver lining to the news from FY2018: In absolute terms, more asylum cases were granted in that year (14,200) than in any previous year (in FY2017, courts granted 11,591 cases, and in FY2016, they granted 9,714 cases). Of course, the only reason so many cases were granted is because courts are adjudicating record numbers of cases overall. But these days, we takes our good news where we gets it.

These figures raise an obvious question: Why are denial rates so high?

One factor that is (probably) not to blame is the availability of help from lawyers. For the first time since FY2013, representation rates are going up. When people are represented, they are statistically more likely to win their cases. For example, in FY2016, asylum seekers without lawyers were denied 90% of the time; those with lawyers were denied only 48% of the time. While I think this disparity exaggerates the benefit of lawyers (because people with weak cases are often less likely to have representation), it is still pretty clear that having an attorney increases the likelihood of a successful outcome. Given that more people are represented these days, the increased asylum denial rate is likely not caused by an absence of legal council.

A second reason that I suspect is not to blame are the new Immigration Judges hired since the Trump Administration came into office. Since January 2017, the Executive Office for Immigration Review has significantly expanded the number of IJs nationwide. Most likely, this accounts for the increased number of decisions, but we don’t yet have data on the “Trump” judges’ denial rates. My guess is that the statistics for these new IJs will not differ very much from their more senior colleagues. I could be wrong here, but at least in my experience, the new judges do not seem any tougher than the judges that we have been dealing with for years. Perhaps as they gather more data, TRAC will issue a report about this (and maybe I will be proved wrong – I will be curious to know the answer).

One likely candidate for the increased denial rate is the case Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (AG 2018), which was issued by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions this past June. The decision made asylum more difficult for people fearing harm from non-state actors, in general, and for victims of domestic violence, in particular. After Matter of A-B- was issued, there was a corresponding uptick in asylum denial rates. Even before Matter of A-B-, however, asylum denial rates had increased since the end of the Obama Administration (and indeed, they have been increasing since 2012). This increase might reflect less significant developments in immigration case law, as well as the cultural shift that I imagine accompanies any new Administration (and especially an Administration so openly hostile to non-Americans).

When considering asylum denial rates, one important point about A-B- is that the case is limited in scope. Certain aliens–especially people fleeing domestic and gang violence in Central America and Mexico–will be disproportionately affected, but others will not be affected. Given that a large percentage of asylum cases involve Central Americans and Mexicans, a case like A-B- has a visible impact on overall denial rates, even though the impact of the decision is limited to certain types of cases. This means that while changes in the law have affected the denial rate, that effect is an “average,” and how a particular case is impacted depends on the facts of that case.

Another contributing factor to the higher denial rate may be that more long-term residents are coming into Immigration Court. This happens because the government is aggressively pursuing aliens without lawful status. It also happens because the Asylum Offices are identifying people who have been in the U.S. for more than 10 years, and trying to refer them to court.

Aliens who have been present in the United States for more than one year are often ineligible for asylum due to the one-year filing bar. There are exceptions to this rule, but it is generally more difficult for such people to win their asylum cases. Many people in this position file asylum as a last-ditch effort to remain in the United States. My guess is that as these long-term residents start to receive decisions, many will be denied, and this will contribute to the overall increased denial rate.

We’ll have to see whether the current trend continues. These days, government officials are looking for ways to make asylum more difficult, but they are limited by the law, and so it’s not clear how much higher the denial rate can go. When thinking about denial rates, it is important to remember that certain cases–Matter of A-B- cases, one-year bar cases–are probably driving the increase in denial rates. Other cases are less affected. Either way, the environment these days is not easy for any asylum seeker, and so it is more important than ever to gather evidence and present the strongest case possible.

Continue reading

253 Comments

Deportation Can Mean Death, Even When the Judge Gets It Right

by Jason Dzubow

A recent article in the Washington Post discusses the case of Santos Chirino, a Honduran man who sought asylum in the United States after gang members threatened him for testifying against one of their own. Immigration Judge Thomas Snow found that Mr. Chirino did not qualify for asylum or other relief, and ordered him deported. Eight months after he returned home, Mr. Chirino was shot dead at a soccer match.

Mr. Chirino’s is a sad and sympathetic case. But the fact is, his story tells us nothing about whether Judge Snow made the wrong decision. In fact, our asylum system is designed so that a certain percentage of those properly ordered deported will be harmed or killed in their home countries. Let me explain.

To win asylum, an applicant must demonstrate that he faces at least a 10% chance of “persecution” (serious harm or death) in the home country (this statement is a simplification, but for our purposes, it works just fine). Mathematically speaking, applicants who demonstrate a 9% chance of harm should be deported. If 100 such individuals are deported, we would expect nine of them to be persecuted upon their return.

Predicting is difficult; especially when it’s about the future.

As a conservative and cautious person, I do not like these odds. If you tell me that my airplane has a 9% of crashing, there’s no way in hell I’m getting on board. I’ll take the bus, thank you very much.

The situation is even more grim for people–such as Mr. Chirino–who do not qualify for asylum, but who still fear harm. Some people are ineligible for asylum because they committed crimes; others, like Mr. Chirino, are barred because they failed to file within one year of arriving in the U.S. and failed to meet an exception to that rule; still others are blocked because the harm they face is not “on account of” a protected ground (race, religion, nationality, particular social group or political opinion). Such people can apply for other, lesser, forms of relief: Withholding of Removal and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). But to qualify for protection under these laws, an applicant must demonstrate that she will “more likely than not” suffer persecution or torture in the home country. In other words, that the likelihood of harm is greater than 50%.

This means that under our system, applicants for Withholding or CAT who demonstrate a 49% chance of being persecuted or tortured should properly be deported. Again, if 100 such people are deported, we can expect 49 of them to be harmed. This is not very comforting for asylum applicants or their families, or for people like Judge Snow who work in the system and are tasked with enforcing the law.

There’s another side to this coin, however. That’s the case where the adjudicator grants relief, and then the person commits a bad act inside the United States. Fortunately, such cases are rare, and it has been pretty-well demonstrated that immigration to the United States has a neutral or positive effect on crime rates (this makes sense given the strict vetting process for immigrants). But there are glaring exceptions, and these tend to get significant attention. One recent case involved a Salvadoran teen accused by DHS of membership in MS-13. Last summer, an Immigration Judge found the evidence against him insufficient and ordered him released from custody. A month later, he helped commit a brutal murder. Once again, the Immigration Judge may have made the “right” decision, but the end result was tragic.

So in a sense, Immigration Judges are caught between the Charybdis of granting relief and the Scylla of denying. But to me, that is not really their problem. We live in an imperfect world, and we have an imperfect asylum system. Judges operate within that system and hopefully follow the law to the best of their ability. If a particular asylum seeker has demonstrated a 9% chance of harm, the judge should deport that person. That is the law, and if we don’t like the law, we should try to change it.

In Mr. Chirino’s case, the tragedy is compounded by the fact that his denial was likely a result of failing to meet the nonsensical one-year filing deadline. Had he filed on time, or met an exception to the one-year bar, his case would have been evaluated under an easier standard, and he might have been granted relief. Again, this is a problem with the law, not the judge, and it is up to us to change laws that we do not like.

Several years ago, I was speaking with Judge Snow, who I consider one of the best and most thoughtful judges I know. I was thinking about applying to be an Immigration Judge, and I asked him how he handles hard cases, those where his sympathies lie with the applicant, but where relief was legally unavailable. He told me that in such cases, he does his best to follow the law, even when it is difficult. That is a judge’s duty, and I have little doubt that that is what Judge Snow did in the case of Santos Chirino.

I suppose all this goes to show that what works for “the system” does not necessarily work for the individual. One could argue that Mr. Chirino was an innocent martyr of our asylum system. He and many others have died or been persecuted so that our humanitarian immigration system might exist. It is important for all of us to be aware of these sacrifices, and to work towards a more perfect and just system.

Continue reading

154 Comments

Two Words I Never Thought I’d See Next to Each Other: BACKLOG SHRINKS!

by Jason Dzubow

It’s the season of miracles. One day’s worth of oil burns for eight days. A child is born to a virgin mother. The Eagles will return to the Super Bowl. OK, that last one is probably a bridge too far, but I know miracles happen because the asylum backlog is shrinking. Yes, shrinking.

As usual in asylum world, the news is not quite so straightforward, but let’s look at the newest data from the Asylum Division and try to break down what’s happening. The most recent report covers the months of July, August, and September 2018. The number of asylum cases pending in the United States is shown in the chart below:

July 2018 320,663
August 2018 320,314
September 2018 319,202

So between July and September 2018, the backlog shrank by 1,461 cases, or about 0.5%. Prior to July, the backlog was still increasing, though for a few months growth had been pretty flat. This means that more cases are being completed than are being filed.

Breaking News: Drop of water removed from ocean!

The first question is, Why is this happening? Looking at the data, it seems that the main reasons are that the number of new cases being filed is down and the number of cases being interviewed is up. Between July and September 2018, there were 23,257 new asylum cases filed. For the same period in 2017, there were 30,804 new cases filed. This represents a decrease of nearly 25%. Also, between July and September 2018, the Asylum Offices conducted 19,573 interviews. For this period in 2017, they conducted 15,405 interviews. Thus, the number of cases interviewed has increased by about 27%. The total number of cases completed during this time frame has also increased, from 16,852 in 2017 to 24,695 in 2018, an increase of almost 47%.

Why have the number of new cases gone down? The most obvious answer is that fewer people are able to get to the United States. Between the “Muslim ban,” the generally hostile attitude towards foreigners, and the Trump Administration’s machinations at the border, it is more difficult for people to come to our country. For example, in September 2017, the State Department issued 652,035 non-immigrant visas worldwide. During September 2018, the State Department issued 620,158 visas, which represents about a 5% decrease. However, for countries that “send” us asylum seekers, the drop appears much more dramatic. Take Venezuela, the top source country for asylum seekers. The number of B visas issued for Venezuelans dropped from 1,861 in September 2017 to 1,060 in September 2018, a drop of 43%. If fewer people are coming here, especially from troubled countries, it stands to reason that we will see fewer asylum applications.

Also, the Trump Administration has made its attitude towards non-Americans quite clear. It has also ginned up hostility and anger more generally. In a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face, I suppose making our country a less attractive place to live means that fewer people will want to come here.

Why have the number of interviews gone up? One explanation is that fewer Asylum Division resources are being deployed to the border, and so this is freeing up officers to interview affirmative asylum applicants.

Anyone who arrives at the border (or an airport) and who states that they need protection should receive a Credible Fear Interview (an initial evaluations of asylum eligibility). These interviews are conducted by Asylum Officers. When the officers are doing CFIs, they are not working on “regular” asylum cases. The large number of CFIs is widely believed to have led to the backlog. However, here we run into an anomaly. In FY2017, Asylum Officers issued 79,710 CFI decisions. In FY2018, they issued 97,728 decisions, an increase of nearly 23%. Somehow, despite a significant increase in CFIs, the Asylum Division managed to process more affirmative cases.

My guess is that this “anomaly” is the result of increased people power. The Asylum Division has hired large numbers of Officers who deal exclusively with CFIs. Many of these Officers perform interviews remotely (there is an office in Arlington, Virginia dedicated to CFIs). So perhaps this explains how the Asylum Division was able to make progress on  affirmative cases while still processing large numbers of CFIs.

Aside from hiring more Officers, the Asylum Division has tried to increase productivity by identifying cases that have been filed more than 10 years after the applicant arrived in the United States, and to offer those applicants an opportunity to skip the interview and go directly to Immigration Court. Some applicants have filed asylum primarily as a vehicle to get into court, where they will seek other relief (usually Cancellation of Removal). However, the impact of this plan seems fairly marginal. The number of cases referred to court without an interview during the three-month period was 1,275 in 2017 and 1,680 in 2018. The total number of cases referred to Immigration Court based on a filing deadline referral (i.e., the applicant missed the one-year asylum-filing deadline, failed to demonstrate an exception to the rule, and probably received a truncated interview) was 5,138 in 2017 and 6,684 in 2018. Also, the number of “no shows” increased from 2,072 in 2017 to 3,040 in 2018. Collectively, all this probably made a modest contribution to increased productivity.

All this leads to the final, and probably most important question: How will all this affect people who are stuck in the backlog? I think the answer here is, It depends.

First and most obviously, it depends on whether this trend continues. I think there is good reason to believe that the trend will continue. Between the Trump Administration’s efforts to block people from coming to the U.S. and the Asylum Division’s seeming ability to simultaneously process CFIs and affirmative cases, I expect we will see continued progress on the backlog.

Second, it depends on which particular Asylum Office we are talking about. Some offices are dealing with their backlogs better than others. For example, in September 2018, some offices completed more cases than they received (Chicago, Los Angeles, Newark, and New York). Other offices received more cases than they completed (Arlington, Boston, Houston, Miami, New Orleans, and San Francisco). This changes month-to-month, and so it is difficult to guess how a particular case will ultimately fare, but you can see the data for yourself and make your own predictions.

Of course, all this can change quickly, depending on the state of the world, our government’s policies, and the ability of the Asylum Division to keep pace with new cases. But for now at least, the backlog is shrinking. For those stuck waiting, I suppose that is a rare bit of good news.

Continue reading

177 Comments

Of Caravans and Consequences

by Jason Dzubow

As thousands of asylum seekers approach the Southern border in “caravans,” the Trump Administration is reacting harshly. Border Patrol Agents fired tear gas at men, women, and children. The crossing at San Ysidro has been closed, resulting in significant economic losses in San Diego (businesses on the U.S. side earn between $10 and $15 million per day from Mexican consumers). And U.S. immigration authorities are essentially denying migrants’ right to apply for asylum by insisting that they can process only 60 to 100 cases per day.

DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen writes that the “caravan… entered Mexico violently and attacked border police in two other countries.” She states that the caravan is well organized and includes more than 8,500 individuals, with more on the way. Most of the migrants are men, she writes, and the “limited number of women and children in the caravan are being used by the organizers as ‘human shields’ when they confront law enforcement.” Secretary Nielsen claims that, “we have confirmed that there are over 600 convicted criminals traveling with the caravan flow.” How this has been “confirmed,” she dos not say. Secretary Nielsen also states that most migrants are coming here for jobs or to reunite with family members, and notes that, “Historically, less than 10% of those who claim asylum from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador are found eligible by a federal judge.”

I hear that the U.S. Border Patrol is recruiting new agents in the Andaman Islands.

Others who have witnessed the migration paint a somewhat different picture. For example, a photojournalist who traveled with the caravan in Mexico estimates that 25 to 30 percent of the migrants are families with children. Other members of the group are elderly. “Though many were fatigued and battered by the experience,” he writes, “they often expressed a good deal of hope for what awaited them at the border.” Another journalist who interviewed migrants found that the people he spoke to were fleeing violence in their home country.

So there is disagreement over who the migrants are, and why they are coming here. But what are the legal, policy, and political implications of the caravan?

First, anyone who arrives at a U.S. border is entitled to apply for asylum. The law on this point is pretty clear–

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 and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section….

The Trump Administration wants asylum seekers to wait outside the U.S. while their cases are decided. Whether this is lawful is not so clear. The law seems silent on this point, though the Attorney General has the authority to “establish a procedure for the consideration of asylum applications.” Arguably this would include where the applicants must wait while their cases are adjudicated. My guess is that this “wait in Mexico” policy–like most of the Administration’s other policies–will be subject to a court challenge.

There are also practical and policy implications for how we deal with the caravan. The Trump Administration claims that it only has the capacity to process 60 to 100 cases per day. This, I don’t believe. Statistics from the Asylum Division show that in FY 2018, Asylum Officers conducted an average of 253 credible and reasonable fear interviews per day (assuming the Officers are working 365 days per year), and in the busiest month (June 2018), they conducted an average of 318 interviews per day (again, working every day). Admittedly, these figures are for all parts of the country, but they illustrate the government’s capacity to deal with a crisis if it chooses to.

At the present rate, the government will need 3 to 5 months to screen the current group of people waiting at the San Ysidro crossing (assuming that no more asylum seekers arrive there). Whether Mexico has the will, ability or legal obligation to accommodate large numbers of people waiting for asylum in the U.S., I do not know. Rumors of an agreement between the Trump Administration and the incoming Mexican President are still unconfirmed, but even if Mexico agrees to host the migrants, it is unclear whether they can deal with so many people.

The legal effect of the long wait is clear: Some asylum seekers will be denied their right to seek asylum in the U.S. The practical effects are also pretty obvious. The Mexican side of the border is unsafe and economically weak. The migrants will have a hard time remaining there while they wait for decisions. Imposing cruel conditions on people fleeing persecution seems an inhumane way to deter people from exercising their legal right to seek asylum, but that has been the modus operandi of the current Administration.

I imagine there will also be political and economic consequences for our country if large numbers of Central Americans get stuck on the Mexican side of the border. Besides straining relations with Mexico, we set a bad example. If the U.S. rejects these relatively few refugees, will other countries follow our lead and deny protection to people fleeing persecution? Will they use violence to keep refugees out? The implications for international humanitarian law are potentially dire.

While I am no fan of the Trump Administration’s border policies (or most of its other policies), it is not enough to criticize without offering an alternative. That is easier said than done. Compared to migrations in the past, the current numbers are relatively modest. Indeed, the overall number of illegal entrants for 2017 is significantly down from peak periods in 2014 (for Central Americans – down 41%) and 2007 (for Mexicans – down 80%). Nevertheless, our country’s tolerance for immigration seems lower, and something needs to be done.

One idea (possibly DOA from a political standpoint) is to make the argument that screening and admitting asylum seekers is good for us. First, helping people who are fleeing harm is the right thing to do. Also, asylum seekers are less likely to commit crimes than the average American, they tend to use fewer public benefits, and they are a net economic gain for our country. Certainly, we should be working to convince the general public that a more liberal immigration policy would be beneficial.

But in examining policies solutions, we need to keep in mind that most Central American asylum seekers will not qualify for protection. This is not because their countries are safe. Rather, it is because the type of harm most Central Americans face does not easily fit within the legal framework of asylum (also, many such applicants lack legal representation and cannot properly present their cases). Unless this changes, it makes sense to process the cases as quickly and fairly as possible, and to return those who do not qualify for protection.

Also, we need to decide where and how people will wait for their decisions. How many asylum seekers abscond rather than appear for hearings? Are some types of migrants (families, for example) less likely to abscond than others? Do we need detention or “wait in Mexico” at all? If so, do alternatives to detention (such as ankle bracelets) work? How can large numbers of refugees be kept safely for a period of months? These are not easy questions to answer, but the answers are knowable and I have little doubt that we can manage the border humanely and honorably, if we so choose.

In the wake of Democratic successes in the 2018 election, politicians may conclude that they have more to gain by working towards immigration reform than by using immigrants as boogeymen to rally voters. But compromise is not easy. It requires that we all do something that is not very American: Accepting less than everything we wanted. I doubt that any reform would give us the immigration system that I envision, but I still feel hopeful that we could end up with something better for our country–and better for immigrants and asylum seekers–than we have now.

Continue reading

94 Comments