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

What a Democratic Majority in the House Means for Asylum Seekers

by Jason Dzubow

When the 116th session of Congress opens on January 3, 2019, the Democrats will control the House of Representatives. Republicans still hold the Senate and, in case you didn’t notice, the Presidency. However, this is an important change from the last two years, when Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress. What will a Democratic House mean for asylum law and policy?

First, let’s talk about changes to the law. Since the time of the Refugee Act of 1980, which established our current asylum framework, there have been relatively few changes to our humanitarian immigration laws. In 1996, Congress amended the definition of “refugee” to include victims of forced abortion and forced sterilization, and in 2005, the REAL ID Act attempted to tighten up the legal requirements for a grant of asylum.

During the first two years of the Trump Administration, when Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency, there have been no amendments to the nation’s immigration laws. Instead, the Administration focused on changing immigration policy based on executive orders–the travel ban, for example. It is curious that the same Republicans who criticized President Obama for his reliance on executive orders (such as DACA), failed to pass any legislation to further their own immigration agenda. Congress and the President could have acted to restrict the law vis-a-vis asylum seekers. For whatever reason, they did not, and now their window is closing. Given the hostility of the President and many Republicans towards asylum seekers, this is probably a good thing.

The beginning of a beautiful friendship. Or not.

Now, with the Democrats in charge of the House, any change in the law would need to be approved by them. This means that a purely punitive immigration reform is very unlikely to pass into law. So while the President can–and probably will–continue to impose hostile policy changes in terms of how the law is implemented, he will be constrained by the existing law. This means that, for the most part, non-citizens who fear persecution will remain eligible to seek and obtain asylum in the United States.

Another way that the Democratic House majority may help asylum seekers is in the area of oversight. With control of the majority comes the ability to issue subpoenas and more carefully oversee government agencies. This is important in the area of immigration, where many agencies–DHS, ICE, CBP, DOJ, EOIR–have engaged in questionable (or worse) practices with impunity.

The most high-profile example of agency malfeasance was the separation of children from their parents at the border. The policy was seemingly enacted as a way to deter asylum seekers, and the best thing you can say about family separation is that it was managed incompetently. Congress has thus far failed to investigate this fiasco, but that could change with Democrats in charge of the House.

Another area where Congressional oversight would benefit asylum seekers is at EOIR, which has been improperly hiring Immigration Judges based on their political leanings. Some of this is publicly known, but much of it has remained below the radar (though those of us in the business hear about it through the grapevine). My guess is that EOIR will be more careful going forward, given that House Democrats could subpoena employment documents to determine whether hiring officials acted improperly. Other agencies within the federal government will likely be similarly constrained.

House Democrats can also exercise oversight to protect the Immigration Judge’s union, which has been working hard to preserve judicial independence and resist the Administration’s efforts to turn their gavels into rubber stamps. I’ve heard rumors about a plan by the Administration to break the union. Whether this is true or not, I do not know, but House Democrats can potentially kibosh any such effort.

A third area where Democratic control of the House could affect asylum seekers is funding. Blocking and detaining immigrants is not cheap. The President’s most high-profile project is the border wall, but immigration enforcement in general is expensive. The Trump Administration has expanded the use of detention, and apparently plans are afoot to continue this trend. House Democrats can exercise some control by denying funding for the President’s more far-fetched projects. They could potentially limit funding for detention, investigate the private prisons where many non-citizens are held, and encourage the use of alternatives to detention. I suppose they could also grind deportations to a halt by reducing funding for Immigration Judges, though I doubt many Democrats are inclined in that direction.

In short, control of the House gives Democrats significant leverage over immigration matters. But it also comes with significant political risks. President Trump has effectively used the immigration issue to motivate his supporters, and if Democrats are seen as checking the President’s agenda, they can expect to be blamed for any real or imagined failures in the immigration realm. How this will translate in terms of votes, I do not know. President Trump and his surrogates raged about the caravan, but if that motivated their base, it was clearly not enough to archive success in the most recent election cycle.

Aside from simply blocking the President’s agenda, Democrats would do well to propose some positive legislation of their own. Of course, any reform would require bi-partisan support, since Republicans control the Senate and the Presidency. Whether such compromise is possible in the current climate, I do not know, especially since the President seems to view immigration in political, rather than policy terms. I expect he will be more-than-happy to let Democrats block his harsher proposals so he can use that to rally his base in 2020. But just maybe, after having lost in 2018, Republicans will conclude that their resistance to immigration reform is doing them more political harm than good. If so, perhaps there might still be a path towards constructive immigration reform.

Continue reading

141 Comments

Fridtjof Nansen, WWI, and the Beginning of the Modern Refugee Regime

by Jason Dzubow

This week–on November 11–marked the 100th anniversary of the Armistice that ended World War I. In terms of refugee law, the Great War is usually eclipsed by WWII, which gave rise to the Refugee Convention (in 1951). The Convention forms the basis for our international and domestic humanitarian law up until today.

But the First World War was also foundational to our current refugee regime, and so it’s too bad that WWI developments in refugee law get short shrift. Upwards of 10 million people were displaced by the War and the subsequent rise of the Soviet Union. Many would never return home and would permanently resettle in other countries. This mass movement of civilians led to political, cultural, and social changes, and predictably, to a backlash against refugees (as a security, economic, and health threat) that sounds all-too familiar today.

Fridtjof Nansen serves meals to orphans in Armenia (apparently, he was also a good cook).

Probably the most prominent figure in post-WWI refugee resettlement was a Norwegian wunderkind named Fridtjof Nansen. Mr. Nansen was born in 1861. He was a record-breaking skater and skier. He studied zoology in university, and went on to become a world famous artic explorer. In 1888, he led the first expedition to cross Greenland, and in 1895, he came within 4 degrees of the North Pole, the furthest north anyone had traveled to date. After his career in the Artic, he turned to science, where he made important contributions to the fields of neurology and oceanography. Mr. Nansen served as a diplomat and advocated for separation of Norway and Sweden (which had been united since 1814). Norway became independent in 1905.

Norway was neutral during the First World War, and during those years, Mr. Nansen was involved in organizing his nation’s defense. In 1917, he was dispatched to Washington, where he negotiated a deal to help alleviate a severe food shortage in his country.

After World War I, Mr. Nansen successfully helped advocate for Norway’s involvement in the League of Nations, and he served as a delegate to that body. He became involved in the repatriation of prisoners of war, and between 1920 and 1922, led the effort to resettle over 400,000 POWs in 30 different countries. In 1921, Mr. Nansen became the League’s High Commissioner for Refugees and helped resettle two million Russians displaced by the revolution. At the same time, he was working to relieve a massive famine in Russia, but had trouble securing international aid (due largely to suspicion of the new Marxist government). He also assisted Armenian refugees after the genocide there, and devised a controversial population exchange between Turkey and Greece, which resolved a Greek refugee crisis, but also resulted in the expulsion (with compensation) of Turks from Greece.

Mr. Nansen created the “Nansen” passports in 1922, a document that allowed stateless people to travel legally across borders. By WWII, 52 nations recognized the passport as a legal travel document. Nansen passports were originally created to help refugees from the Russian civil war, but over 20 years, they were used by more than 450,000 individuals from various countries (including a number of well-known figures, such as Marc Chagall, Aristotle Onassis, G.I. Gurdjiieff, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, and Igor Stravinsky). The passports served as a foundation for a clearly-defined legal status for refugees, and some scholars consider the creation of the Nansen passports as the beginning of international refugee law.

In 1922, Mr. Nansen was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee cited “his work for the repatriation of the prisoners of war, his work for the Russian refugees, his work to bring succour to the millions of Russians afflicted by famine, and finally his present work for the refugees in Asia Minor and Thrace.”

Mr. Nansen continued his involvement in the League of Nations through the 1920s, and he flirted with Norwegian politics, though he seems to have no major ambitions in that direction. In 1926, Mr. Nansen came up with a legal definition for refugees from Russia and Armenia, and his definition was adopted by several dozen nations. This marked the first time that the term “refugee” was defined in international law, and it helped set the stage for later legal developments in the area of refugee protection.

Fridtjof Nansen died on May 3, 1930. After his death, a fellow delegate from the League of Nations eulogized, “Every good cause had his support. He was a fearless peacemaker, a friend of justice, an advocate always for the weak and suffering.”

Even after his death, Mr. Nansen’s work continued. The League of Nations established the Nansen International Office for Refugees, which helped resettle tens of thousands of refugees during the inter-War years. The Nansen Office was also instrumental in establishing the Refugee Convention of 1933 (now, largely forgotten), the first international, multilateral treaty offering legal protection to refugees and granting them certain civic and economic rights. The 1933 Convention also established the principle of “non-refoulement,” the idea that nations cannot return individuals to countries where they face persecution. To this day, non-refoulement is a key concept of international (and U.S.) refugee law. For all this work, the Nansen Office was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1938.

Fridtjof Nansen’s legacy lives on in many ways. There are geographic features named after him in the Artic, Antarctic, and various places around the globe. In space, there is a crater on the moon named in his honor, as well as an asteroid. The oldest ski club in the United States is named for Mr. Nansen, and there is a species of fish that bears his name (Nansenia). A museum in Armenia documents his scientific and humanitarian achievements. And each year, the United Nations bestows the Nansen Refugee Award on an individual or organization that has assisted refugees, displaced or stateless people. For me, though, Mr. Nansen’s most enduring achievement is his pioneering work to help establish international refugee law, a legal regime which protects us all.

Continue reading

97 Comments

In Defiance of Hate

by Jason Dzubow

The massacre at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh hits home for me, as a Jew and as an immigration lawyer. The murderer shouted anti-Semitic slurs as he gunned down innocent parishioners. His on-line rants point to his motivation: Hatred of HIAS (the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, a Jewish resettlement agency) and “invaders,” i.e., refugees seeking protection in the United States.

The synagogue attack did not happen in a vacuum. According to the Anti-Defamation League, incidents of anti-Semitism increased 57% between 2016 and 2017. We’ve also seen a rise in hate crimes against immigrants (and people perceived to be immigrants), and there is good reason to believe that anti-Semitism and anti-immigrant sentiment go hand in hand.

What to do about all this?

Only love can drive out hate.

On the macro level, we as a nation need to do better. We need to be more civil and more truthful. We need to listen more, and we need to think critically and be less wiling to accept the version of “reality” that comports with our own narrow prejudices. These are important policies points, but they are not really what I want to talk about in the wake of the massacre in Pittsburgh.

I want to talk about defiance.

The murders in Pittsburgh were motivated by hatred of Jews and hatred of immigrants. This was an act of terror, designed to intimidate us. It was the violent manifestation of the same hate that has, of late, become prominent in our country. Politicians–most notably our President, but many others as well–have fanned the flames of this hatred for political gain. The animosity has largely been directed at Muslims, Mexicans, and immigrants, but many “outsiders,” including Jews, have also been targeted.

The reaction I have observed from my friends in the Jewish community has been unified and powerful: We are not intimidated by the haters and we are not afraid. We will not compromise or cower. We will continue to attend synagogue and engage in all the social, charitable, and religious activities that have been the hallmark of our vibrant community. We have survived persecution by Romans, Crusaders, Inquisitions, programs, Nazis, and terrorists. We are still here and we will carry on.

I saw this determination last week at a vigil at my synagogue. Over 3,000 people came to honor and remember those murdered and injured in Pittsburgh. The mayor of Washington, DC spoke, so did the governors of our neighboring states, Maryland and Virginia. Leaders of the local and national Jewish community were there, as was the Israeli Ambassador. Also present were clergy and lay leaders from many faiths. And so while the pain inflicted on our community is very real, the support we feel is overwhelming.

Since the attack in Pittsburgh, I have been to my synagogue four times–for regular events and special events related to the massacre. Maybe the best way to honor the martyrs in Pittsburgh is to continue to live our lives as Jews, and that is what we are doing.

As for my friends in the immigrant-advocacy community, I have also seen our determination. The attack in Pittsburgh was motivated by hatred and fear of “invaders,” who the murderer thought were coming to the U.S. to “slaughter” his people. He specifically mentioned a refugee resettlement agency, HIAS, which has been helping displaced Jews and others since 1881.

The murderer’s fear of these “invaders” does not come from nowhere. The President and many others have been lying about the alleged threat of refugees and other foreigners. They have been ginning up hatred and anger. I suppose this is their way of motivating their supporters to vote. But it also seems related to the attack in Pittsburgh, and it apparently has inspired private militia members to bring their guns to the border and fend off the “invasion.” And why not? If we are being invaded by terrorists and gang members, armed resistance is the logical response.

The torrent of hate has effected immigrants and their advocates, and not just at the border. The HIAS office now has armed guards. Other immigrant advocacy groups have increased their security as well. The Pittsburgh attack and the regular threats received by advocates demonstrate that the danger is real.

But the lies and the hate have not stopped immigrant advocates from doing our jobs. Indeed, the situation is quite the opposite–more people than ever are donating and volunteering to help immigrants and refugees. In part, this is simply because people want to help others who are in need. It is also a response to rising xenophobia, and to the hatred and mendacity we see from some politicians and pundits. The bottom line, though, is that we are continuing our work to support immigrants and refugees despite–and because of–the current political environment.

Eleven Jews are dead. Other Jews and law enforcement officers are injured. There is no escaping this tragedy. But to the extent that the attack was designed to terrorize us and to prevent us from living our lives and pursuing Justice, it has failed. I have faith that even in these difficult times, we will never surrender to the forces of hate, and in the end, we will prevail.

Continue reading

113 Comments

In Defense of Refugees

by Jason Dzubow

In an on-line rant shortly before he entered a synagogue and murdered 11 people, Robert Bowers railed against asylum seekers and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, a refugee-assistance organization: “HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

Who are these “invaders” and why do we allow them into our country?

The first thing to know is that not every foreign person who faces harm abroad qualifies for protection in the United States. The definition of “refugee” is circumscribed by law. The feared harm must be “on account of” a protected ground: race, religion, nationality, particular social group or political opinion. These categories reflect our American values, and when we grant asylum, we demonstrate our commitment to those values.

I am an attorney who specializes in political asylum. Every day, I represent non-citizens who are seeking refugee status in our country. My clients include activists for democracy, peace, and women’s rights, journalists who have stood up for free speech, advocates for gay and lesbian rights, members of religious minorities who have risked their lives for their faith, and interpreters and aid workers who have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with our own country’s soldiers and diplomats in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. These people—asylum seekers and refugees—have risked their careers, their property, and their lives in order to help further the values that are foundational to our nation and to all who believe in freedom and liberty.

Critics of our humanitarian immigration policies claim that asylum is merely a kindness we extend to needy recipients. That we get nothing in return. This view of asylum is false.

Since its beginning—during the Cold War in the 1950’s—asylum was about advancing America’s strategic interests. In those early days, we used the asylum system to demonstrate moral superiority over our Soviet adversaries. We celebrated famous dissidents, athletes, and artists who defected to the West. Now, the Soviet Union is gone, but asylum remains an essential tool of U.S. foreign policy. We gain tangible benefits from asylum. And I am not talking only about the influx of talented, brilliant people who add to our nation’s strength.

When we give asylum to interpreters who served with our soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, we demonstrate our loyalty to those who work with us. When we grant asylum to women’s rights advocates, we show our support for the cause of gender equality. When we support journalists, we show that we stand for free speech. And when we grant asylum to religious minorities, we reinforce our founding principle of Religious Freedom.

Imagine for a moment what it would mean to deny asylum to Iraqi interpreters, woman’s rights advocates, journalists or members of religious minorities. Imagine what that would say about us, about our country. Imagine what message it would send to those around the world who are working for the values that we, in our best moments, embody.

When we offer refuge to those who have stood with us, and who have risked their lives to advance the values that we cherish (and which we too often take for granted), we send a powerful message: When you work with us, when you work for the values we believe in, America is with you. And when activists around the world have confidence that America is on their side, it helps them continue their struggle for justice.

And it helps us too. If we want their cooperation and loyalty going forward, our allies need to know that we are there for them. That we will protect them if they need our help. Our asylum and refugee systems demonstrate–in a tangible way—our loyalty to those who stand with us, and this helps us advance our own national interests and our moral values.

Asylum seekers and refugees are not invaders. They are people who we choose to allow into our country. We make this decision based on our own foundational values: democracy, human rights, women’s rights, press freedom, religious liberty. Our humanitarian immigration system does not threaten our country. On the contrary, it represents our nation’s highest ideals made manifest.

Continue reading

84 Comments

The Ineffable Backlog (and a Bit of Good News)

by Jason Dzubow

Someone–maybe a new age guru–once defined for me the Buddhist concept of time: Once every hundred years, a monk walks up to a mountain and brushes it lightly with a feather. In a short time, the mountain will be eroded to nothing.

This is also good way to think about the asylum backlog. If you assume that the mountain is growing. And you assume that the monk sometimes forgets to show up.

If you’re stuck in the backlog, you don’t need anyone to tell you how slow it is. The wait is particularly painful for asylum seekers separated from spouses and children, but it is bad for everyone. The effects are psychologically and financial, lives are put on hold, career and education opportunities are missed, time with loved ones is lost forever. People who are often already traumatized are re-traumatized by the endless waiting and uncertainty.

Things that move faster than the asylum backlog.

So what’s happening with the backlog lately? The latest data we have is from June 2018. It’s not always easy to understand the statistics from the asylum office, at least for me, but here, I will discuss what we know.

First off, the backlog, which has been growing for years, seems to have leveled off this Spring. Between April and June 2018, the backlog grew from 319,056 cases to 319,563 cases. That’s a growth rate of less than 0.1% per month. Does this mean that the Asylum Division is finally getting a handle on the backlog? Maybe, but I think it is still too soon to know. One issue is that when the system changed from FIFO to LIFO in January 2018, the volume of new cases dropped. Now that lawyers and applicants have mostly adjusted to the new system, we might expect a higher volume of cases post-June. Also, it seems more people have been arriving at the Southern border lately, and this likely will divert resources that would otherwise have been used to adjudicate affirmative asylum cases. In any event, we’ll have to keep an eye on the overall numbers to see whether the trend from this Spring continues.

Second, from the chart below, which contains information from June 2018, you can see that some offices are doing better than others in terms of interviews and decisions. A number of offices are completing more cases than they are receiving (Chicago, LA, Newark, NY, and San Francisco). Logically, you would think this means that these offices are interviewing all new cases that come in, and making progress on backlogged cases. But I am not so sure that is true. If you look at the number of interviews actually conducted, you can see that only Los Angeles and Newark are interviewing more cases than they are receiving. So for me at least, how many new cases and backlogged cases are being interviewed and decided is still something of a mystery (also, remember, these numbers are just a snapshot from one month–June 2018).

 

Office New Cases Interviews Scheduled/Conducted Cases Completed
Arlington 885 637/374 664
Boston 259 292/160 221
Chicago 611 690/507 750
Houston 752 397/253 440
Los Angeles 867 2,145/1,113 1,230
Miami 2,046 1,494/929 1,298
Newark 692 1,635/911 1,179
New York 946 1,494/815 1,180
New Orleans 204 374/117 201
San Francisco 605 1,147/646 730
TOTAL 7,867 10,307/5,825 7,893

 

There are other mysteries contained in these numbers. Why are so many interviews scheduled, but so few actually conducted (less than 57% of scheduled interviews were conducted in June 2018)? Some interviews are cancelled by the Asylum Offices; others (more) are cancelled by the applicants. You would think that under LIFO, most applicants would file a complete case and be prepared for an interview when it comes, but maybe not (and if you’re wondering, the reschedule rate was about the same under FIFO).

Another anomaly–though not quite a mystery–appears in the numbers for the Miami Asylum Office, which is receiving far more new cases than any other office. The reason? It may be because Venezuela has surpassed all other countries as a source nation for asylum seekers, and I suspect that these applicants largely land in Miami. Indeed, if you look at the top sending countries for asylum seekers, you will see that for the last three months (at least), Venezuelans make up more than 25% of all affirmative asylum seekers in the United States.

One final point for today. I posted previously about the declining grant rate for affirmative asylum cases. At that time (February 2018), the overall approval rate for FY 2018 cases was 26%. The most recent numbers paint a similar picture. The overall approval rate for April 2018 is 23.5%. The rate for May is 26.3%, and for June is 25.0%. However, if we remove from the mix cases where the applicant did not show up for the interview, where the applicant declined an interview (and went directly to court to seek other relief), and where the application was denied due to the one-year bar, the situation is better: The approval rate under those circumstances for April 2018 is 41.4%. May is 44.5%, and June is 43.0%. So this means, generally speaking, if you file for asylum on time, and you show up to your interview, you have a decent chance of winning your case. Let’s call that good news, and end there for today. Au revoir!

Continue reading

134 Comments

Ten Things I Hate About You-SCIS

by Jason Dzubow

Lee Francis Cissna, the Director of USCIS, is building an “invisible wall” to compliment his boss’s “big beautiful wall” along the U.S./Mexico border. The “invisible wall” consists of bureaucratic barriers to prevent people from obtaining immigration benefits in the United States. Ostensibly, the plan is to make America more secure and to protect our country’s workforce. From my perspective, though, much of it seems like gratuitous cruelty, which especially impacts families who don’t have the resources to hire a lawyer.

The bureaucratic changes at USCIS also impact attorneys, increasing our work load and our stress level. It’s now harder to advise our clients, since many USCIS decisions seem arbitrary. While cases are mostly still successful, the environment is decidedly less pleasant. And so without further ado, here are the top ten things I hate about the “new” USCIS:

(1) Asylum Seekers Must Report Arrests on the I-765 Form: The new I-765, a form used to request an employment authorization document (“EAD”), requires that asylum seekers–and only asylum seekers–indicate whether they have ever been arrested. Other EAD applicants, such as people waiting for a green card based on a family or work petition, are not required to report prior arrests. Why are asylum seekers so special? I have no idea, but it’s clear that the current Administration is no fan of asylum, and so perhaps this is another way to punish those who have the temerity to ask our country for protection. What’s wrong with asking about prior arrests? Aside from the arbitrary decision to single out asylum seekers for this additional burden, there are a couple issues: First, many asylum seekers have been arrested back home for their political opinion or religion (hence, they are seeking asylum). USCIS wants documents on all arrests, but it is often impossible to obtain documents for these “illegal” arrests, and this could potentially result in a denied EAD application. Another issue is delay. It takes extra time to process applications if there is more to review. We can expect this new requirement to slow down cases where the person has a prior arrest, and since extra resources will be devoted to such cases, we can expect a ripple effect for all EAD applicants. Finally, the new requirement might necessitate some EAD applicants to hire lawyers, which can be burdensome. And for those with lawyers, the extra work might result in higher fees. At its heart, this is an access to justice issue: In many cases, you receive the justice you can afford, and that is not fair.

A French immigrant is blocked by the invisible wall (and frankly, in this case, I’m good with that).

(2)  Delayed Work Permits After an Asylum Grant: I am not sure how widespread this problem is, but we’ve seen a number of examples lately where a person is granted asylum, and then waits months to receive her new EAD. The delay makes it more difficult to get or keep a job, and it can also block people from receiving a driver’s license.

(3) Disappearing Cases at the Texas Service Center: Most of our office’s affirmative asylum cases are filed at the Texas Service Center (“TSC”). But sometimes, cases are received at the TSC, and then vanish, like dignity from the Oval Office. This happens if the applicant had a prior asylum application, which we did not know about (sometimes, an applicant was a dependent on a prior case and did not know about the case), and it can also happen if we accidentally send an application to the TSC when it should have been sent to a different service center. Why the TSC can’t simply inform us about these errors, or just reject the application, I do not know (though there is an email to contact the TSC, and they recently assisted in one of our cases – Thank you, TSC!).

(4) Rejected Cases at the TSC: The TSC is also notorious for rejecting cases for small, insignificant errors. We once had a case rejected because we did not list the applicant’s siblings. He had no siblings (now, we make sure to write “n/a” in any empty boxes on the I-589). We’ve had instances where we forgot to check a box, and the application was rejected and returned to us. Now-a-days, we triple check the applications in the hope of avoiding such issues, but I imagine for pro se applicants, this is more frequently a problem. The shame of it is, most of these small errors could be resolved at the asylum interview; there is no reason to reject the entire case, causing additional delay and stress.

(5) Refusal to Accept Birth Certificates: Lately, we’ve seen examples of USCIS refusing to accept birth certificates that were not created at the time the person was born (we have not seen this problem for asylum cases, but we have seen it for asylees who are filing for a green card). It is common practice in many countries, that when you need a birth certificate, you request it from the local office. They look it up in a registry, and issue a birth certificate. This used to satisfy USCIS, but no longer. Now they want hospital records, letters from people who knew you when you were born, old school records, and lots of other difficult-to-obtain information about your birth. For me, the best evidence that a person was born is that the person currently exists. Shouldn’t that be enough?

(6) Denial of Advance Parole for Asylum Seekers: To get Advance Parole (“AP”) as an asylum seeker, you must show a “humanitarian” need for the travel. In the past, this was basically a formality. But now, all sorts of evidence seems necessary to obtain AP. In one of our recent cases, the client was seeking AP to visit her mother, who was ill. We submitted a doctor’s letter about the mother’s condition, but USCIS denied AP because the mother was not sick enough (the doctor’s letter indicated that the mother’s condition was “stable”). What was the purpose in blocking our client from visiting her sick mother? To me, this is simply another way to punish people seeking asylum in our country.

(7) Limitations on Advance Parole for Asylum Seekers: We have also seen examples of USCIS issuing AP for very limited periods of time. In one case, we received the approval, but AP was only valid for two days, thus making travel impossible. We try to avoid this outcome by requesting multiple trips, and timing the trips so that USCIS issues the document for a longer period, but what is the harm in issuing AP for one year (or longer)? Why make travel difficult for people who are already enduring difficult circumstances?

(8) The Four-Page Form G-28: Maybe this is a quibble, but why does it take four pieces of paper to enter my appearance as a lawyer using form G-28? All USCIS should need is my name and contact information, the client’s name and information, and space for some signatures. The form used to be two pages, which already seemed too long. Now, every time we enter our appearance, we have to waste four pieces of paper. The G-28 is just one example of USCIS form proliferation. The I-485 went from six pages to 18 pages. The I-130 went from two pages to 12 pages plus another six-page form for marriage cases. The Lorax would not be pleased. Neither am I. Also, of course, longer forms increase costs.

(9) Less Requests for Evidence, More Denials: A new USCIS policy memo makes it easier for the agency to deny cases, instead of issuing requests for evidence (“RFE”). Aliens are paying big bucks for a lot of their applications, and previously, if the applicant made a mistake, USCIS would issue an RFE to allow the person to correct her application. Now, USCIS will deny some such cases. As a result, some aliens will hire lawyers (and endure additional expenses that should have been unnecessary); others may have their cases denied, thus losing their fees and potentially jeopardizing their ability to remain in the U.S.

(10) Slower and More Unpredictable Processing Times: All the changes at USCIS have inevitably affected processing times. Applicants often want to know how long their cases will take, and how long they will have to wait to be reunited with loved ones. These days, processing times have become longer for most applications. Also, processing times have become more unpredictable. For example, if you are applying for a green card in Baltimore, Maryland, the processing time is between 11.5 and 27 months. That’s pretty long, and pretty unpredictable. It’s hard to plan your life in the face of such uncertainty.

I could go on, but I am sure you get the point. USCIS’s “invisible wall” is having its desired effect: It is making it more expensive and more difficult for people to come to the United States. People with fewer resources will suffer the most (as usual), but everyone is affected. Cases are still being approved, but these days, applicants need to be prepared for a more difficult journey to reach their goal.

Continue reading

155 Comments

A Beautiful Application Is a Successful Application

by Jason Dzubow

A poet once said, “It’s not how you feel; it’s how you look. And you look mah-velous!”

What does this gentle wisdom have to do with asylum cases? Simply this: Whether you have a strong case or a weak case, if you present your case in an organized and neat fashion (i.e., if you make it look marvelous), you are more likely to be granted relief.

How do I know this is true? I really don’t. I just made it up. But it seems true. Plus, I have talked to Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges, and I know they sometimes become frustrated with disorganized applications. Also, it makes sense–if you make the decider’s job easier, you are more apt to get a good decision. So how should an asylum application look?

Yours truly, several years before being voted “Best Looking Asylum Lawyer in Washington, DC.”

The first thing to know is that there are different rules for the Asylum Office and the Immigration Court. The Asylum Office rules are more lenient. When we prepare evidence for the Asylum Office, we basically follow the Immigration Court rules. In this way, we are prepared in the event that the case goes to Court. Also, the Court rules provide good guidance for how to organize a packet of documents.

First, let’s talk about Asylum Office cases. For such cases, we include a cover letter. This letter is short, and simply explains what type of application we are filing. If there are any issues of particular note, we might mention those in the cover letter–for example a one year bar issue, a criminal conviction or a prior asylum application.

Next, we include the packet of documents. We do not send any original documents; we submit copies (we have the client bring any originals to the interview). We also keep a copy of the entire packet for ourselves. Per Asylum Office rules, we submit two copies of the entire packet of documents. Each page of the packet is numbered. I put the numbers in the bottom center of each piece of paper. Also, each individual exhibit is labeled with a letter (Exhibit A, Exhibit B, etc.). In front of each exhibit is a separate page with a tab (A, B, C, etc.). If the packet of exhibits is tabbed and paginated, it is easy for the officer to find what she needs.

On top of the packet of exhibits, we include an index. The index lists each exhibit by letter and page number. I also include a brief description of each exhibit, so that the officer can read my summary, rather than a (sometimes) lengthy document. An abridged example of how we do the index is here: Example Index

The exhibits we typically submit, aside from the original I-589 form, include copies of: All passports, the applicant’s affidavit, birth certificate, marriage certificate(s), divorce documents, national ID cards, identity documents for spouse and children (passports, birth certificates, national ID cards), education documents (diplomas, transcripts, awards), employment documents, any criminal or arrest documents (from the U.S. or overseas), police reports, medical reports (including forensics reports about scars or psychological trauma), membership documents for political, religious or other organizations, letters from witnesses, threat letters or evidence of threats, relevant photos (of political activities, injuries, etc.), relevant news articles, and country and human rights reports. Any documents not in English need to be translated with a certificate of translation. Of course, the documents we submit vary, depending on the case and what we need to prove. But the format is always the same.

Also, it is a good idea to submit the exhibits on time. These days, under LIFO, we usually complete the entire case and submit everything together with the I-589 application (since we often-times receive a quick interview date). However, if you are submitting documents after the case has already been filed, make sure your Alien number is on the cover page and the index, and make sure everything is submitted on time. Some asylum offices want your exhibits at least one week prior to the interview. You can contact the local asylum office to ask about the filing rules.

If you have a case in Immigration Court, the rules are more strict. First of all, you need to submit one copy of everything to the Court and one copy to the DHS Office of the Chief Counsel (the prosecutor). Second, you need to follow the rules related format, which you can find in the Immigration Court Practice Manual (follow the link called “OCIJ Practice Manuel;” chapter 3 and appendices F and G are particularly useful for format). Also, you need to submit a witness list (check chapter 3 of the Practice Manuel, page 57-58). The list of exhibits will look similar to what I described above for the Asylum Office index. For non-lawyers, this is all a bit much, and for this reason, if you have a case before the Immigration Court, you would do well to find an attorney to assist you (if you cannot afford a lawyer, you might be able to find one for free).

One last tip: If possible, submit all documents by hand (and bring your copy of the exhibits so the Asylum Office or Court can stamp it with a proof of service) or by certified mail. It is common for evidence to get lost, and so it is a good idea to have proof that you submitted the evidence.

Whether your case is before the Asylum Office or the Immigration Court, it will benefit you to submit a neat, well-organized packet of evidence. And by the way, darling, you look mah-velous!

Continue reading

114 Comments

Mandamus for the Rest of Us

by Jason Dzubow

This posting is by David L. Cleveland, a staff attorney at Catholic Charities in Washington, DC. David was Chair of the AILA Asylum Committee from 2004 to 2005, and has secured asylum or Withholding of Removal for people from 47 countries. A graduate of the University of Rochester and Case Western Reserve University School of Law, he has published articles about asylum in Bender’s Immigration Bulletin, ILW.com, AILA, and Lexis-Nexis.

When I was in high school, I liked music by a British group called “The Kinks.” One of their songs was “Tired of Waiting.”  It goes: “Tired of waiting, Tired of waiting for you, So tired….”

Now, I am an immigration lawyer. I file cases. I wait. I get tired from time to time. My clients, of course, suffer more than me. They are really tired of waiting.

What can be done about this?

David Cleveland, pictured here listening to the Kinks.

First, I try to determine if the application is, or is not, in the hands of a real human being. There are cases that “slip through the cracks.” Supervisors at USCIS have told me–more than once–that at times, cases get “lost.” For example, an asylum case file is assigned to Officer “A” in January 2015. His boss tells him to make a decision. But, six months later, Officer A quits his job. His boss realizes that the case should be assigned to a new officer, but it doesn’t happen. The case is not re-assigned. It sits in a box in the asylum office, but no officer is assigned to it.

In such a case, the applicant can make an inquiry at the asylum office, and ask, “What is the name of the officer assigned to my case?” The applicant can ask at the asylum office reception window, “Where is my case? In whose office is it?” If the case has not been assigned, the applicant’s inquiry might cause it to be assigned. The applicant can also email the Asylum Office, but sometimes, it is more effective to go in person.

Second, the applicant can try to force the Asylum Office to make a decision by filing a complaint in the local U.S. District Court. The theory of the case is simple:

(1) Congress enacted a law–the Administrative Procedures Act–that provides that a federal court “may” compel an agency to act in a case if it is “unreasonably delayed.”

(2) The applicant filed–for example–an asylum application with the USCIS more than three years ago, and there has been no action on the application.

(3) A three-year delay is “unreasonable.”

Therefore: Judge, make the agency do something! Make them adjudicate the case!

Is a three-year delay unreasonable?

Many judges have said “No, a three-year delay is not unreasonable. Applicant loses.”

In fact, applicants waiting more than three years have been denied relief: A judge in Missouri denied relief to an applicant who had been waiting six years. A California judge agreed: Six years is not unreasonable. A judge in New York denied relief in a case involving a five-year delay. A DC judge agreed that five years was not unreasonable.

But, another DC judge said 2.75 years was too slow. SAI v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 149 F. Supp.3d 99, 121 (D.D.C. 2015) (airport patron who alleged harassment at airport filed an administrative complaint).

In another case, Haus v. Nielsen, 2018 WL 1035870 (N.D. Illinois 2018), the government filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that a three-year delay was reasonable. The Judge denied the motion, stating that he was not “prepared to hold” that a three-year delay was reasonable. He did not say it was unreasonable, either. This case illustrates the confusion and difficulty judges have with these kinds of cases.

What happens after a complaint is filed in federal court?

A copy of the complaint is delivered to the agency (in an asylum case, the agency is USCIS). The agency then gives the complaint to its lawyer; very often, this is a lawyer at the Department of Justice (“DOJ”). The Judge sets a deadline for the agency to file a response with the court–often 60 days after the complaint was filed.

The DOJ lawyer could file a motion to dismiss the case, citing precedent that holds a six-year delay is reasonable.

Or, the DOJ lawyer could telephone the agency, and ask, “Why haven’t you made a decision on this case? Why don’t you make a decision soon? If you do, then I do not need to file a motion with the Court.” Such phone calls, at times, result in agency action.

I am aware of three recent cases in the Washington, DC area: (1) In January 2017, an asylum applicant filed a complaint in court. He was granted asylum in March; (2) In June 2017, an asylum applicant filed a complaint. USCIS interviewed the applicant a second time, and then denied asylum in September; (3) In June 2018, the applicant filed a complaint. He was granted asylum in July. In these three cases, the agency did not file a motion to dismiss. Instead, the agency did what the applicant wanted by adjudicating the case (even if the result was not always what the applicant had hoped for).

Each case is different. Many applicants who file complaints lose. But some win. If you would like more information, contact me at David.Cleveland@cc-dc.org.

Continue reading

126 Comments

Proposed DHS Rule Seeks to Exclude Poor Immigrants

by Jason Dzubow

The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has proposed a new rule, which seeks to block anyone who is likely to become a public charge from immigrating to the United States. DHS justifies the new rule, in part, based on history–

The term “public charge” as applied to admission of aliens to the United States has a long history in U.S. immigration law, appearing at least as far back as the Immigration Act of 1882. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries public charge was the most common ground for refusing admission at U.S. ports of entry.

This seems an odd precedent to cite, since the same Congress, three months earlier, also passed the racist Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which blocked the immigration of most Chinese nationals to the United States. In addition, in the same breathe that Congress enacted the public charge requirement, it also blocked anyone who was a “convict, lunatic [or] idiot.” So I’m not sure that historic pedigree is the best justification for DHS’s new rule (on the other hand, if convicts, lunatics, and idiots were blocked from government service, I don’t think anyone would be left in the Trump Administration).

“In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges.” – Anatole France

A second reason for the new rule, according to DHS Secretary and patron of Caucasian restaurants Kirstjen Nielson is to “promote immigrant self-sufficiency and protect finite resources by ensuring that they are not likely to become burdens on American taxpayers.” I suppose it supports self-sufficiency to force would-be immigrants to choose between feeding their children and remaining in the U.S., but perhaps there are more humane ways to encourage non-citizens to become self-reliant. Finally, the tax-payer argument is not too convincing either, given that most credible studies show that immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take (this, despite the Trump Administration’s effort to suppress such information).

Whether or not the new rule is justified, DHS seems set to forge ahead, and so here I want to discuss how the proposed rule would affect humanitarian immigrants to the United States. The short answer is that asylum seekers, asylees, and refugees are exempted by statute from the public charge requirement, and so they are not affected by the new rule. Also, since the rule would not apply to people with a Green Card seeking to naturalize, asylees and refugees who adjust status and become lawful permanent residents (Green Card holders) would not be affected by the rule. In sum, if you are an asylum seeker, asylee or refugee, or if you have obtained your Green Card based on one of those categories, the new rule does not affect you.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that the new rule will affect many other categories of immigrants and non-immigrants, including people who are inside the United States and who wish to extend or change their status, or who wish to adjust status and obtain their Green Cards. Some people–including people who received public benefits or who are, in the opinion of the U.S. government, likely to require such benefits, or people who have previously requested a fee waiver from USCIS–may be blocked outright from entering or remaining lawfully in the United States. Other people will be deterred by the new rule’s increased costs and wait times. Indeed, the proposed rule makes clear that implementing the public charge requirements will increase costs on aliens seeking to immigrate or visit the United States. These costs will be monetary, since it seems that processing fees will be going up. There will also be additional costs in the form of delay, since adjudicating public charge cases will take time. Whether humanitarian immigrants will be indirectly affected by these costs (in the form of higher overall fees and wait times), we will have to wait and see.

President Trump was elected to reduce immigration, and the new rule is another step in that direction. In this sense, the President is simply doing what he was elected to do. However, in another sense, it’s difficult to escape the fact that the new rule is racially tinged. Like the poll taxes and literacy tests before it, the proposed rule is facially neutral, but there is little doubt who will be most affected: Immigrants of color and their families.

Of course, we can expect the new rule to face legal challenges. However, unlike facially neutral laws to disenfranchise minority voters, immigrants have fewer legal protections, and so the likelihood of a successful court challenge is unclear.

In any event, the proposed rule has not yet gone into effect. DHS has released a draft of the rule (last Saturday) and will publish it in the federal register. Once that happens, we will enter a “comment period” when members of the public (including you) can make our views known. For now, information on how to submit comments can be found on page 2 of the proposed rule.

Barring a successful court challenge, I expect the proposed rule will be implemented largely as written. If so, many immigrants and their families, as well as our nation, will be harmed. The silver lining for asylum seekers, asylees, and refugees is that the rule will not affect them. These days, I suppose we have to take our good news where we find it.

Continue reading

228 Comments

An Open Letter to the “Complicit” Asylum Officer

by Jason Dzubow

By now, you’re probably familiar with the famous, anonymous op-ed in the New York Times, written by a high-level member of the White House staff who is “resisting” President Trump. But in asylum-world, there’s another anonymous article getting attention. It’s an interview in Topic Magazine with an un-named asylum officer.

The interview is sad and poignant. It’s obvious that the officer cares about his (or her) job and the individuals who are seeking protection in the United States. With the advent of the Trump Administration and it’s increasingly hostile approach to asylum seekers, the officer is facing a crisis of conscious: “I struggle every single day with how to determine whether I’m causing more harm than good,” the officer states.

Asylum Officers review the latest Trump Administration policy memo.

One example the officer gives is the implementation of the infamous “zero tolerance” policy at the border, where parents and children were separated, often by trickery, and with no real plan for reunification:

I was interviewing moms in detention who were separated from their children. [U.S. government officials] took their children away from them. All that they wanted from me was to know where their kids were. They would ask me, “Where are my children?” But I was told not to tell them where their kids were. I was told not to tell them. When I say I’m complicit, this is what I mean.

Obviously, looking a desperate mother in the eyes and declining to give her information about her children is a soul-crushing experience. And, according to the anonymous officer, the Administration’s policies are having a deleterious effect on asylum officers:

People in the office are demoralized. I think the job was hard to begin with. There were already very high expectations, very rigorous screenings. Now, there is a fear among upper-level officers that the [asylum] program could get cut altogether, so everyone is trying very hard to not make any mistakes so that the program doesn’t get cut. My worry is that this will lead to people who should get asylum not getting asylum…. [At] this point, I can’t yet fathom what [bad thing] will happen next. I don’t want to, but I’m sure it will come. I never thought they would take kids away from their parents. What else could they do? They did that, so they could do anything.

What should a decent, moral person do in a situation like this? For me (as an outsider), the answer is not so clear. I have friends who have left government because they could not contribute to the goals of the Trump Administration. Other friends have chosen to stay, to do whatever good they can. Which approach is better probably depends on the individual and her circumstances, and I am quite sure it is not an easy decision either way.

If it were me, one factor in deciding whether to stay or go would be the impact of my choice on the asylum system. I have written this before, but it bears repeating here: In many ways our asylum system is sacred. Our country grants protection to strangers who arrive on our shores seeking refuge from danger. We offer asylum in part because it serves our national interests. But we also offer asylum because we are generous and good. By helping others, we help define ourselves. My decision to leave would depend in part on whether I thought my departure would make “the system” better or worse.

Asylum Officers, Immigration Judges, and government attorneys implement the asylum law. Without them, there would be no humanitarian immigration system. In my experience, most of these people are hard working. The majority are clearly committed to the rule of law, and to Justice (though we don’t always agree on what “Justice” looks like). They take their responsibilities seriously and recognize the life-changing nature of their work. They are the ones who have to make the difficult choices (choices that lawyers like me do not have to make): Whether to grant a close case or deny a sympathetic one that simply does not qualify for relief; whether to give an applicant the benefit of the doubt; whether to grant or deny as a matter of discretion. These are the tough choices that ultimately allow “the system” to continue functioning.

So it seems to me, the question for the anonymous asylum officer and many hundreds like him, is whether there is still room in the system–and in his particular job–to do Justice. In the case of our officer, it appears that such room still exists.

Even as the Trump Administration is working overtime to narrow the path for asylum seekers, it is still possible to do good. As the anonymous officer notes, “there is still space to be fair, and to provide opportunities for people.” And it’s not just fairness; it’s also kindness. Speaking about female asylum seekers detained at the Southern border, the officer says:

I think that oftentimes for the women who are detained at those facilities, [my interaction with them] will be the first moment that someone will be kind to them. The very first time in the whole process. They are not treated well at the border, by other agents in other agencies….

The value of such kindness is difficult to overstate. It can be the difference between hope and despair. Even for people who are ultimately denied, the fact that they were treated with respect and fairness makes a real difference. I have seen that myself many times.

As an attorney who represents asylum seekers, I hope that the anonymous officer will stay. When good people depart government service, the rule of law is degraded. The decency and compassion that have been–to borrow a word–the loadstars of our asylum system, are further eroded. And of course, the erosion of our humanitarian immigration system also marks a degradation of our country’s humanity.

These days, many good people in government are conflicted. The anonymous officer states, “I think about it [quitting] all the time.” I don’t blame the officer for this. It is painful to compromise one’s morals. But now, more than ever, I think we need people like this officer to stay. To do their jobs. And to pursue Justice.

Continue reading

196 Comments