Nearly half of the nation’s Immigration Judges are eligible to retire this year.
Last week, I attended the retirement luncheon for one of them: Judge Wayne Iskra. For the past 10 years, I practiced before Judge Iskra at the Arlington, Virginia Immigration Court. I also clerked for him back in 1998-99. He is a wonderful person who was a great inspiration to me and many others. He was also a great judge–he was devoted to ensuring that justice was done, and he had little patience for attorneys (private attorneys or DHS attorneys) who failed to fulfill their duties.
Immigration Judges today…
The MC at the lunch, Judge Thomas Snow, noted that before his retirement, the Chief Judge repeatedly described Judge Iskra as “irreplaceable.” Finally, Judge Snow realized that when the Chief said that Judge Iskra was irreplaceable, it meant that he would not be replaced.
So the Arlington Immigration Court, which is already very busy and where cases are currently being scheduled into late 2016, will now go from five judges to four. The same thing happened in Baltimore last summer, when another excellent and long-serving IJ, Judge John Gossart, retired.
Although I have not heard news of any mass retirement, the Associated Press reports that almost 50% of the nation’s Immigration Judges are eligible for retirement this year. While I suppose this is good news for people selling condos in Ft. Lauderdale, it is bad news for the Immigration Court system.
…and in 2015.
And yes, as the immigration restrictionists love to remind us, certain immigrants prefer delay, so they can buy more time in the United States. But at least in my experience, this is a minority. Granted, my cases may not be typical. Most of my clients have good cases, and so the sooner they get to the merits hearing, the better. Also, many of my asylum clients have family members who they hope to bring to the U.S. if their cases are granted. The longer the delay, the longer they are separated from (and worried about) their family members. So for me, the increased delays are definitely a bad thing.
Also, I am quite certain that the remaining IJs won’t be happy about their depleted ranks. Immigration Judges are already overworked and overburdened. The title of a 2010 Mother Jones article sums it up well–Judges on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown. From the article:
Caught in the middle [of the Obama Administration’s efforts to increase deportations] are the judges, for whom mind-numbing bureaucracy collides with thorny moral issues. Most of the time, they work without even basic staff like bailiffs and stenographers. Increased immigration enforcement means that their workload is the highest it has ever been—three to four times larger than caseloads in other federal courts.
And of course, mistakes can have dire consequences. As one IJ noted, “It makes me feel ill to grant asylum to someone who I believe is probably lying, but it also makes me sick to think that I have denied protection to someone who really needs it.”
The obvious solution is to hire more (lots more) judges and court staff. But given EOIR’s budget (or lack thereof), this seems unlikely. So here are a few other thoughts:
– Create an easy, secure on-line system to allow EOIR-registered attorneys to do their Master Calendar Hearings by email. Attorneys could enter their appearances, admit or deny allegations, plead to charges, and set dates for Merits Hearings. For complicated cases (and pro se cases), IJs would still require Master Calendar Hearings, but an on-line system would be a great time saver for everyone.
– Hire more DHS attorneys and staff, and encourage them to communicate with attorneys for immigrants. Many issues can be resolved before trial, which saves time. However, because DHS is also short staffed, they do not have the resources to review cases prior to trial and speak with opposing counsel. If they did, it would shorten hearings and make life easier for the IJs.
– Stop deporting so many people. It seems that President Obama is intent on setting deportation records year after year. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people are being placed into removal proceedings. If ICE were more selective about who it tried to deport, DHS attorneys and IJs could focus more on those cases. We don’t ticket everyone who drives over the speed limit. We don’t prosecute everyone who is caught with a joint. We don’t arrest everyone who illegally downloads music. Why? Because we don’t have the resources to do those things, and to do so would require intolerable levels of intrusion into our lives. In the same way, it seems to me, we could relax a bit concerning deportations. Resources–including judges’ time–is limited. We should use that limited resource more efficiently.
– Don’t allow any more IJs to retire. OK, maybe it is not technically legal to force IJs to keep working, but an immigration lawyer can dare to dream. Besides, I want Judges Iskra and Gossart back.
Last week, two new clients hired me. Each told me a story that ranks among the worst I’ve heard since I’ve been practicing asylum law.
Having a positive attitude is half the battle.
The first was an Iraqi grandmother. Her son worked for an international NGO and the family had received threats because of the son’s work. One day, armed militiamen pulled the son from his car, and shot him to death in front of my client, her daughter-in-law (the son’s wife), and the son’s infant child. Later, the militia bombed my client’s house and killed her elderly mother. Years before, my client lost her husband, when he was killed in a bombing raid during the Iran-Iraq War. My client’s relative/translator explained, “This is Iraq.”
The second client was from Afghanistan, and his story was not directly related to his current asylum claim. He told me that 20 years ago, he was going to a party at his relatives’ house. For some reason, he was delayed, and before he arrived, the house was hit by a missile. He reached the scene moments later, and witnessed horrific carnage (I will spare you the details he told me). Suffice it to say, he saw many relatives and friends dead and dying. At the time, he was a teenager, and what he saw sent him into shock. He was physically unable to offer assistance, and he had to be carried back to his home. Relating the story many years later, he told me how the scene was still perfectly clear in his memory.
One thing that both clients have in common is that they laughed nervously and smiled while telling me their stories.
It seems to me that laughing and smiling in response to these stories is a very human reaction. Perhaps the normal emotions–anger, grief, shock–are simply inadequate to the task of recalling and relating such events. Or maybe my clients’ embarrassed smiles are almost an apology for having to talk about such terrible stories. There probably is no appropriate affect for telling personal stories of senseless violence and life-changing horror, and so maybe the default demeanor is a shy smile or a nervous laugh.
Of course, as an immigration lawyer, I am concerned that an “inappropriate” smile or laugh might create the impression that my clients are not credible. Although they have often reacted this way during our practice sessions, my clients seldom laugh or smile during actual trials or asylum interviews. And even if a client did show an “inappropriate” emotion, I suspect that most decision makers would see the reaction for what it was, and I doubt credibility would be negatively impacted.
I also sometimes wonder about how these stories affect the people that hear them. One study I found about secondary trauma in asylum lawyers found that lawyers were at some risk of secondary trauma, and the risk increased with the amount of time the lawyers worked on asylum cases. Another study, which originally appeared in the Georgetown Immigration Law Journal (where I once served as a Senior Notes and Comments Editor), found that Immigration Judges suffered from secondary trauma and “more burnout than has been reported by groups like prison wardens or physicians in busy hospitals.”
I’ve always been a bit skeptical that people in my line of work (or me specifically) suffer from secondary trauma. The difficulty for me comes not from hearing the clients’ stories (which can be upsetting), but rather from overwork. Too many clients expect too much, too quickly. Maybe hearing terrible stories and working with people who have experience real trauma has an effect on us, but it is very hard–for me at least–to see this effect.
But of course, like my clients who laugh when they tell me their stories, I have my own ways of coping with stress. In my first job out of college, I helped find work for recently resettled refugees. Everywhere I went, I asked about employment opportunities. Finally, I decided that I could not continue that way. There was a time for work, and a time for not working. If you can’t separate the two, you ultimately won’t be successful at either. Although it is more difficult now, with my own business, I still try to keep that separation. With that said, I’m off to the pub to do some more coping. Cheers.
Since it is the beginning of the year, I thought I might go back–way back–to explore the ancient origins of asylum. As you may know, the word “asylum” comes from the Greek asylos, meaning that which is inviolable or that which cannot be robbed: “a” (without) + “syle” (the right of seizure). The word originally referred to a sacred place where fugitives could find protection from their pursuers.
Even today, some refugees still seek protection from statues.
The origins of asylum are probably more myth than history. One candidate for the creator of asylum is the ancient Egyptian King Assyrophernes, who supposedly erected a statue in honor of his dead son (King Assyrophernes does not appear on the Egyptian King Lists, and at least one scholar claims that the whole story was made up by an historian in the early 18th century). The son’s statue later became a place of worship for the king’s servants and eventually a place where people could seek asylum. Under this theory, the concept was transferred from the Egyptians to the Hebrews, who developed and codified the idea.
Another candidate for the originator of asylum is King Ninus of Assyria, the legendary founder of Nineveh who ruled a vast Middle Eastern empire during the 21st century BC. Whether King Ninus actually existed is also an open question–the oldest written record of the king is found in a fifth century BC account by the badly-named Greek historian and physician Ctesias of Cnidus, who supposedly learned about Ninus from ancient Persian records. In this story, Ninus built a statue to commemorate his father, Belus, which served as an asylum for people fleeing harm.
A third possibility is that asylum was created by the Persians. In the first century AD, the Roman Emperor Tiberius commissioned an inquiry into the origin of asylum in Greece. At the time, the Romans had conquered Greece and the Greek system of temple asylum–which allowed for the protection of fugitives who reached a temple–was a thorn in the side of Rome. In response to Tiberius’s inquiry, two Greek cities reported that their sanctuaries were founded by the Persian kings Cyrus and Darius (fourth and fifth centuries BC) during the Persian occupation. More likely, the right to asylum existed in other Greek communities at the time, and so the two cities in question petitioned the Persians for a right already found in other parts of Greece.
In each of these stories, the refugee obtains asylum by going to a particular place where he is protected. Whether any of these stories is true is an open question, but I suppose they demonstrate that human beings have been dealing with the issue of whether to protect strangers fleeing persecution for a long time.
The earliest written record of asylum in the ancient world comes from the Hebrews. These ancient rules for asylum were created at a time when family, friends or clansman of a murder victim would revenge the death by killing the murderer (or members of his clan). Revenge killings might take place even where the initial death was inadvertent.
To regulate this problem, the Torah (the Hebrew Bible) designates six divinely-designated “cities of refuge” to protect “one who has killed another unwittingly.” The purpose of the cities is to prevent unjustified revenge killings in cases of involuntary manslaughter: “Thus the blood of the innocent shall not be shed, bringing blood-guilt upon you in the land that the Lord has allotted you.” Interestingly, the cities would “serve the Israelites and the resident aliens among them for refuge, so that anyone who kills a person unintentionally may flee there.”
The Torah also created a method for adjudicating the manslayer’s intent. The cities of refuge were run by Levites (priests), and an assembly of such men would decide the case. The system of proof might seem a bit primitive by today’s standards. For example, if the manslayer used an “iron object,” he is a murderer and should be put to death. Ditto for stone or wood tools that “could cause death” (this one seems a bit tautological).
Even if the death was ruled inadvertent and the manslayer received protection in the city of refuge, that was not the end of the matter. If he left the city, and the “blood-avenger comes upon him outside the limits of his city of refuge, and the blood-avenger kills the manslayer, there is not bloodguilt on his account.” The punishment would remain in effect until the high priest died (the death of the high priest, like the death of the sovereign in other societies, signified a new era where prior legal obligations ended). Only then could the manslayer return to his home.
Although the Israelite system was primitive and somewhat arbitrary, it was better than nothing. It also marked the first historically documented system of asylum.
Do people fleeing persecution have a “right” to illegally enter the United States? A new report from Harvard Law School about changes in Canadian asylum policy got me thinking about this question.
The recent changes include the Multiple Borders Strategy (“MBS”), whose goal is to “push the border out” and to “intercept improperly documented persons as far away from Canada’s territorial borders as possible.” Canada “enacts measures that deter and deflect the arrival of asylum seekers at… countries of origin, visa screening points, airline check in points, points of initial embarkation, transit areas, points of final embarkation, and points of final arrival.” How do they do this? Canada has 63 liaison officers in 49 “strategic locations around the world.” The officers “train and work with airlines, local immigration authorities, and local law enforcement agencies to identify improperly documents persons, including some asylum seekers, and block them from boarding Canada-bound boats or planes.” The officers have intercepted 73,000 people between 2001 and 2012. Another part of the MBS is to sanction airlines and shipping companies that allow improperly documented people to arrive in Canada. The Canadians have also imposed stricter visa requirements on people from refugee source countries when refugee arrivals from those countries increase. In short, Canada is doing more to block people from illegally entering the country. So what’s wrong with that?
The Harvard report raises a few points. For one, some of those people blocked from arriving in Canada are refugees (though we don’t know how many). The liaison officers and the carriers do not consider whether a person qualifies for asylum; they block anyone with improper documentation. Another problem is that by tightening security, some asylum seekers will resort to other means of gaining entry into Canada–human smuggling, for example. This puts the asylum seekers at risk of harm. The report concludes that by “closing its borders to asylum seekers, Canada is setting a poor example for other nations, and contributing to the deterioration of refugee protection around the world.”
Aside from criticizing the (probable) negative impact of the MBS on asylum seekers, Harvard offers little in the way of solutions. Should Canada loosen its entry requirements? Should liaison officers allow people with fraudulent documents to go to Canada if those people express a fear of persecution? Should Canada get rid of the liaison officers so it is easier to enter Canada improperly? Should it eliminate carrier fines, so that airlines will be encouraged to allow anyone to fly into the country, even if they do not have permission to enter?
The basic problem, it seems to me, is that refugees who are rich enough to qualify for a visa or to hire a competent smuggler, will likely get in. Ditto for those clever enough to obtain fraudulent travel documents. Poor people, less educated people, people who are not resourceful enough, will not get in. Tightening or loosening the border (or even “pushing out” the border) will, as the Harvard report points out, exclude people in “arbitrary and unprincipled ways,” but this impact is tiny compared to the basic–and very arbitrary–distinction between the rich, the educated, and the lucky, who will probably get in, and the poor, the uneducated, and the unlucky, who will probably be excluded. Thus, even if Canada had not implemented any of the new restrictive changes, the asylum seekers who manage to reach Canada are able to get there because of factors (such as wealth) that are completely unrelated to the merits of their asylum claims. Given that the ability of potential asylum seekers to enter Canada is completely arbitrary anyway, why should it matter if Canada imposes another layer of arbitrariness on those seeking admission? In other words, why should it matter if an arbitrary portion of an arbitrary group is blocked from seeking asylum?
Or, to return to our initial question in a more specific way: Do those asylum seekers lucky enough to have the ability to reach a safe country have a “right” to travel to that country to seek asylum? If you accept the basic premise of sovereignty of nations (and there are very good reasons not to), it is difficult to answer that question in the affirmative. But to answer that question in the negative would invalidate much of international law and practice related to protecting refugees.
Perhaps the key to resolving this dilemma is to recognize that most countries–including Canada and the United States–have given up some of their sovereignty when they voluntarily entered into treaties protecting refugees. Nevertheless, the Harvard report highlights an odd reality: People who are smart enough, rich enough or sneaky enough to evade border security and gain entry into a safe country have a right to seek asylum in that country. But those who are unable to reach a safe country–even if the reason for their failure is that the safe country managed to prevent their entry–do not have a right to seek asylum in that country.
So I guess the answer to the initial question is a qualified yes (or perhaps a qualified no, if you are a glass-is-half-empty sort of person): Asylum seekers have a right to illegally enter the United States, but only if they manage to get in. Or, to paraphrase Robert Anton Wilson, “rights” are what you can get away with.
It’s hard to believe that I am marking my 10-year anniversary as an owner of my own law firm. It seems like so much longer.
During those years, I have represented over 750 clients, most of whom were asylum seekers. I’ve also had five offices, six partners, two employees, a few contract attorneys, and a whole heap of interns. In short, it’s been an incredible, challenging, exhausting, exhilarating, frustrating, funny, and bizarre 10 years. In commemoration of this grand occasion, I thought I would list some of the more memorable moments of my career as a small-firm lawyer. So without further ado, here we are:
– Starting Out: Before starting my firm, I had to pay back my student loans. Once that was accomplished, I moved to Nicaragua, tried to learn Spanish, and then returned and rented an office below a restaurant in DuPont Circle, DC (at $375/month). I decided to use my old computer, as I didn’t have a lot of cash for a new one. Unfortunately, I had been away for a while and my anti-virus program expired. So as soon as I connected to the internet, my computer got a virus that wiped the entire system. It took over a month to get the computer up and running. An auspicious start it was.
Me, at the beginning of my solo lawyer career.
– Rats and Flies: Since the office was under a restaurant, you can imagine there were some issues. I shared the office with a friend and fellow asylum lawyer. Once, while he was talking to a client, a rat kept running around the office. I did my best to distract the client and herd the rat out the door. The client was too polite to say anything, but I don’t think she ever came back. We also had numerous infestations of Amityville-Horror-style flies, and one time, part of the ceiling collapsed spilling some strange brown liquid onto our printer.
– My First “Real” Asylum Case: I had done bits and pieces of a few asylum cases before, but I got my first real case in 2004. It was an Ethiopian guy who entered the U.S. illegally at the Mexican border. Two attorneys had already passed on the case because they didn’t like it, so he was stuck with me. Somehow, he ended up receiving asylum, and that win led to one referral and then another. In the last 10 years, I’ve probably represented close to 200 Ethiopians seeking asylum.
– Afghan Cases: By 2006 or 2007, I had done a few Afghan cases, but it was a very small (albeit very interesting) part of my business. Then a potential client came in who had been a well-known TV star in Afghanistan. He couldn’t afford to pay my fee, and so he didn’t hire me. I thought about it for a few days and decided that I wanted to do his case–it was too interesting to pass up. So I called him and said he could pay whatever he could afford. We won the case, and that led to many more Afghan clients. They now represent the majority of my asylum clients.
Me, after ten years.
– Removed from Court in a Stretcher: If you practice immigration law, you know that Immigration Courts are slow. They make geologic time seem speedy. One of my clients from Morocco was particularly eager to receive her green card so she could visit her family back home. But when she heard her court date–something like two years later–she collapsed and could not be revived (even by a DHS attorney who was a former EMT). The end result, she was removed from court on a stretcher. Happily, she was fine, and the next week, we received a notice that her case had been rescheduled for the following month. I have not advised other clients to collapse when they hear their court dates, but I have been tempted…
– My First Lozada Case: Immigration cases that have been denied due to ineffective assistance of counsel can be reopened under Matter of Lozada. Such cases generally requires a bar complaint against the ineffective attorney. Most lawyers (me included) hate this requirement. But in cases of bad misconduct, there is something satisfying about filing a complaint. The first time I filed such a complaint was against an attorney who was incompetent and dishonest. We proved using the lawyer’s own documentation that she had lied to her (now my) client and to the Immigration Court. The Virginia Bar found that she had violated the rules of professional conduct, but declined to punish her because there were “exceptional circumstances.” What were these circumstances? Turns out, she had already been suspended for three years for messing up two other people’s cases (and lives), so the Bar Association felt there was no need to punish her in my case. As I said to the Immigration Judge in our (successful) motion to reopen, the offending lawyer was saved by her own incompetence.
– The Pain of Exile: I represented an Ethiopian asylee who was in removal proceeding after committing a crime. We filed for a 209(c) waiver, which would allow him to remain in the U.S. One witness, his uncle, was a famous singer who had lived in exile since the mid-1970s. Many of his songs were about Ethiopia. We were trying to show that it was unsafe for the nephew (my client) to return to Ethiopia. I asked the uncle, what he thought of his country. “I love my country.” “Would you like to go back,” I asked. “If it was safe, I would go back tomorrow.” Somehow it struck me as profoundly sad that this man had not been back to Ethiopia in 30+ years, but he still loved and missed his country, and kept writing songs about his homeland. The nephew’s case was approved, in part on the strength of this testimony. And as far as I know, the uncle has not yet returned to Ethiopia.
– The Client Who Paid Me $1 Million: OK, this one didn’t happen yet, but here’s hoping.
– The Clients: There are too many to mention. A few I can remember are journalists from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Human rights activists from Russia, DR Cong, Zimbabwe, and Iran. Police officers from Peru and Nepal. A Rwandan woman who saw her family murdered during the genocide. Interpreters for the U.S. military from Iraq and Afghanistan. A Russian politician who was stripped of his citizenship. LGBT people from Serbia, Egypt, Kenya, and especially Sudan (you know who you are). Women’s rights advocates from Afghanistan. Diplomats from Ethiopia, Iran, and Ukraine. People persecuted due to their religion from China, Egypt, Iraq, Bangladesh, and Eritrea. Victims of gang and cartel violence in Central America. And on and on.
Finally, I should also take a moment to thank the people who have helped make this all possible: My staff, who does all the work while I sit around making witty remarks and eating bon bons, and my family, who tolerates long hours, mediocre pay, and occasional rants about the Man. Thank you.
Lately, I’ve been worrying that asylum might become a victim of its own success. Thanks to lawyers pushing the law, the number and categories of people eligible for asylum has increased pretty dramatically: Victims of FGM and domestic violence, LGBT individuals, certain victims of crimes. This is a good thing, as many lives have been saved. But it has started to attract the attention of immigrant restrictionists, who think the asylum system is too generous. Could the tide be shifting? Might we be on the verge of a backlash?
The Romans aren’t all that popular this time of year.
There’s precedent for such fear dating back to antiquity. When the Roman Empire conquered Greece, the various city-states had a well-developed system of temple asylum. In short, if you were a slave fleeing abuse, you could go for protection to a Greek temple. Over time, the types of people who could claim protection in Greek temples expanded, so that basically anyone, including rebels and common criminals, could find refuge in a temple. The law-and-order Romans would have none of it. In 14 AD, Emperor Tiberius ordered the temples to produce evidence of their right to offer asylum. Most temples could not do so, and so Tiberius’s little bureaucratic maneuver essentially ended asylum in the Greek city-states. So much for the history lesson.
Late last month, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), and Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) announced that they would be holding hearings on asylum and credible fear “abuse” by people arriving in the U.S. via Mexico. The press announcement does not sound promising:
It’s outrageous that members of Mexican drug cartels and others involved in illicit activity are so easily able to exploit our asylum laws and live in the U.S. virtually undetected. Our asylum laws are in place to help individuals who are facing truly serious persecution in their countries. However, dangerous criminals are gaming the system by claiming they have a ‘credible fear’ of persecution when often they’ve been the perpetrators of violence themselves. Their claims almost always get rubberstamped by the Obama Administration and once these individuals are in the U.S., the illegal activity doesn’t stop.
Unfortunately, it appears the Obama Administration is compromising our national security and the safety of our communities for its political agenda. The House Judiciary Committee plans to hold a hearing soon to closely examine this egregious abuse to see what can be done to put an end to it.
Over the last couple months, I’ve written pretty extensively about the influx of asylum seekers at the border, and there certainly seem to be issues that require attention. That’s why it’s disappointing to see such an overtly political description of the upcoming hearings. Hopefully, the hearings themselves will be more constructive (yes, for some reason, I am feeling unusually optimistic – maybe its The Season).
Not that anyone has asked, but I thought I would raise some issues that the Committee might explore:
– We need accurate statistics about who is seeking asylum and why: It is very difficult to know who seeks asylum, who receives it, who receives other relief, and who is denied. One problem is that the two agencies that track asylum cases–DOJ and DHS–use different metrics for calculating their numbers. Another problem is that there are no stats available on people who receive Withholding of Removal and Torture Convention relief (two benefits that are similar, though inferior, to asylum). Congress should mandate better record keeping on asylum cases: Where do asylum seekers come from? What is the basis for their grants or denials? How many are detained? How many leave of their own volition after receiving a denial? How many are deported? How many cases are re-opened for fraud or due to criminal convictions? Such information will allow us to improve our policy-making and will hopefully lead to a better and more secure system.
– We need to make some decisions about how to treat asylum applicants at the borders: There has been a significant increase in asylum applicants arriving at our Southern border. Currently, most are detained and–if they pass a credible fear interview–they are released with a date to return to Immigration Court. I have not seen specific examples of individuals who have entered the U.S. in this manner and then committed bad acts. But given the number of arrivals, the possibility for this to happen seems pretty high. So do we detain these asylum seekers until their cases are heard? Such an approach makes it much more difficult for them to prepare their asylum cases. It is also very expensive. Should each person be fitted with an ankle bracelet or some other tracking device? If we had more accurate data about asylum seekers, perhaps we could better answer these questions.
– We must decide how to treat people fleeing persecution where that persecution is not based on a protected ground: Many people arriving at the Southern border face real harm from gangs, cartels, and criminals. Many others face serious harm due to sexual violence. Often, such people do not fall neatly into one of the five protected categories. Most will not qualify for lesser forms of relief, such as the Convention Against Torture. So what to do with them? Of course, we could simply deport them as we are not obligated by our international agreements to protect them. But sending innocent people to their deaths seems not in keeping with our national values (or any other notion of morality). Could something be done for such people without creating an incentive for everyone South of the border to come to the United States?
– We need to plan ahead to deal with a potentially large refugee flow from Mexico: For years, we’ve been hearing discussion about the possibility of large refugee flows from Mexico due to the violence there. If this happens, our current asylum system will likely not handle the volume. Perhaps we need a contingency plan for how to deal with such refugees. Faced with refugee crises, other countries have created temporary camps for people, where they can stay until it is safe to return (though often that takes decades or longer, and then there is no where to return to). Maybe such a model would be appropriate if the situation in Mexico deteriorates further. Or maybe some type of TPS would be more appropriate. In any case, it seems to me that we can start thinking about this now, so that we are more prepared in case of a humanitarian disaster.
There is obviously more to say about these topics, but–since it is the season of miracles–I continue to hope that the Judiciary Committee will address these and other important issues related to our asylum system.
The blog entry was originally posted on Wherever Magazine‘s website. It’s not uncommon for me to meet clients who have been victims of human trafficking. Most of them were trafficked from East Africa to the Arabian peninsula, and then to the U.S. as domestic servants. Occasionally, I also meet clients who were victims of sex trafficking. For this post, I combined several of my own cases and one publicly available case in order to illustrate the problem of modern day slavery:
Amelia was a promising twenty-something working as a teacher in her native Indonesia. After she lost her job due to religious and ethnic discrimination, she wanted to move some place safe. She began looking for ways to come to the United States.
The past isn’t really past.
Through an ad, Amelia found a position in the restaurant industry in New York. An agency arranged her travel to the U.S., but when she reached JFK, things were not as expected.
Her “contact” met Amelia at the airport and immediately took her passport and other documents. Instead of bringing her to the promised job, he took her to a brothel. When she protested, her contact threatened Amelia with a gun.
For the next several months, Amelia was transported from one brothel to the next and forced to have sex with many different men. Her captors kept her under close watch at all times.
Finally, one day, she escaped through an unlocked window. Even after she was free, Amelia knew no one in the United States and she did not know where to go for help. She lived on the street until she met someone who put her in touch with law enforcement.
Amelia was able to obtain a “T” visa—a special visa for victims of human trafficking, which allows an alien to (eventually) become a permanent resident of the United States.
Except for the successful escape, Amelia’s story is quite typical. Social scientists estimate that there are currently about 27 million victims of human trafficking world-wide. But only a small fraction of those victims—about 40,000 people—are identified and helped each year. In the United States, as many as 200,000 children are currently at risk of sex trafficking. Most victims are trafficked within their own countries, but many people—like Amelia—are taken on long journeys from poor countries to more affluent countries, where they serve as sex slaves, domestic labor or agricultural workers.
According to U.S. government estimates, last year over 17,000 people were brought into the United States to serve as slaves.
As an attorney who represents asylum seekers, I sometimes meet victims of human trafficking. One common scenario involves women recruited to work as domestic servants in the Persian Gulf (most commonly in Saudi Arabia and the UAE). The women usually come from poor countries in Africa and are lured to the Gulf with promises of a decent wage and steady work.
In one recent (and typical) case, my client Fatima had been detained and beaten in Ethiopia because of her political activities. She was also a victim of female genital mutilation. Fatima had to find a way out of her country. She went to an employment agency. The agency helped Fatima obtain a passport and found a job for her as a domestic servant in the United Arab Emirates. In July 2009, she left Ethiopia and started working for a family in the UAE.
Work conditions and pay were not as promised. Originally, the agency told Fatima that she would be babysitting one child. When she arrived, she found that she would be babysitting three young children. In addition, she had to clean the house, cook, wash laundry, and tend to her employers’ guests. Fatima worked 20 hour days, and her employer banned her from speaking with other Ethiopian house servants. When she showed signs of being unhappy, the employer threatened to return her to Ethiopia.
In August 2010, the employers announced that they would be going to Florida with the children for a six month vacation. Fatima would come with them. The U.S. government issued Fatima a visa for “personal and domestic employees” and she was on her way to America.
In the United States, Fatima continued as a domestic servant, but now her employer stopped paying her. She knew no one in Florida and had little opportunity to meet people outside her employers’ house. Finally, after five months as an unpaid, 140-hour a week domestic worker, she met some other Ethiopians in a park. They told her that she could seek political asylum in the United States.
Fatima called her brother in Ethiopia, who put her in touch with some friends in Ohio. Those friends found someone in Florida to help. So early one morning, while her employers were sleeping, Fatima snuck out of the apartment, went to a rendezvous point and met her contact. She stayed with him for a few days until her brother’s friends arranged to bring her to Ohio and then Washington, DC.
In DC, Fatima filed for asylum. The case took several years, but finally, in September 2013, an Immigration Judge granted Fatima’s application for asylum. She has now begun her new life in the United States.
Fatima and Amelia both escaped from their captivity. Most trafficking victims are not so lucky.
At least in Fatima’s case, the U.S. government could have done more to protect her. She received her visa without an interview at the U.S. Embassy. For domestic servants who come to the U.S., the embassies should interview each person (as they do for most other visa applicants) and ask about wages, hours, and working conditions. Where there is evidence of trafficking, visas for the workers and their employers should be denied, and the local authorities should be contacted. At least this would reduce the number of victims trafficked to the U.S. And once they are here, the employers of domestic workers should be required to verify (with evidence) that the domestic workers are receiving their salary, paying taxes, and working reasonable hours. Employers who do not comply with the law should have their visas revoked and should be prosecuted.
For trafficking victims in the U.S., there are resources available. The Department of Homeland Security’s Blue Campaign raises awareness about the issue, and there are numerous NGOs, such as the Polaris Project, involved in the anti-trafficking fight. It will take the combined efforts of governments, non-profits, and individuals to identify and free victims of human trafficking, and bring the perpetrators to justice.
In this article, the names of the women and identifying details have been changed.
As Thanksgiving approaches, I thought it might be nice to look back at our country’s earliest–and strangest–effort to help asylum seekers. I’m not talking about the Pilgrims, who came here long before our nation’s independence. I’m talking about the French colony of Asylum, founded in 1793 on the shores of the Susquehanna River in northern Pennsylvania.
In those days, the United States and France enjoyed good relations, thanks in part to France’s key role during the American Revolution. When France’s own Revolution went bad, the United States was prepared to help refugees fleeing the guillotine—and to make a profit in the process.
…and that’s why, even today, you can find good croissants in northern Pennsylvania.
Several prominent Pennsylvanians were involved in forming the Asylum Company, which purchased land and began constructing large houses in the untamed wilderness. The largest house, called “la grande maison,” was 84 feet long and 60 feet wide. It had eight fireplaces. Supposedly, it was built for Marie Antoinette, wife of King Louis XVI (she of the “Let them eat cake” fame). Unfortunately, Marie Antoinette was executed by the Revolution before she could find asylum in the U.S.
A number of prominent exiles did manage to reach Asylum, including members of the French Royal Court, soldiers, and businessmen. The exiles tried to re-create their aristocratic life style in America, and they enjoyed music and plays, brandy and fine wine. Ultimately, though, the idea of an aristocratic French Court in the Pennsylvania wilderness could not be sustained; the exiles yearned to return to France. One historian described the mood in Asylum:
As time went on [the French] grew to hate the work, the monotony, and the sordid hopelessness of their life at Asylum… Nostalgia had the colony in its grip.
Finally, Napoleon Bonaparte seized power in France and ended the Revolution. He invited all French exiles to return, and promised to restore their estates. The celebration in Asylum supposedly lasted for days, and most of the residents returned to France by 1802. The Asylum Company itself proved a failure, with at least one principal landing in debtor’s prison.
All that remains today of Asylum are some archaeological ruins and a museum. The historic site serves as a reminder of our country’s earliest effort to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution.
Carlos Gutierrez was a successful businessman in Chihuahua, Mexico when cartel members demanded extortion payments from him. After he could no longer afford to pay, the cartel members cut off his feet as an example to others. Mr. Gutierrez somehow survived and fled to the United States where he requested asylum. Ultimately, his case was administratively closed, leaving him in legal limbo (though I guess that beats deportation).
Carlos Gutierrez: “What matters is that you get up. I have no legs, but I am on my feet.”
To raise awareness about Mexican asylum seekers, Mr. Gutierrez–outfitted with prosthetic legs–biked over 700 miles across Texas:
“I’m not here to point the finger at anyone; simply to alert the [U.S.] government as to what’s going on with the Mexican people,” Gutierrez said. “People from other countries are granted asylum as soon as they touch American soil, but not us Mexicans. Because even with the circumstances we’ve lived through – in my case the attempt on my life – it isn’t enough to get asylum. I don’t think it’s fair that it’s this way for Mexicans just because we are from a neighboring country.”
Mr. Gutierrez’s lawyer, Carlos Spector, the founder of Mexicanos en Exilio, adds that, “Asylum law doesn’t reflect the Mexican reality, which is that much of the extortion is possible because of the relationship with the state.” He continues:
Because the police is an extension of the state… and because the police is often responsible for acts of violence or allows acts of violence to occur with impunity, the state is responsible for what happens to victims of organized crime. That, he says, makes it political persecution.
I’ve written before about the abysmally low asylum grant rate for Mexican asylum seekers: Historically, something like 2% of asylum cases from Mexico are granted. So what gives? Why is the denial rate for Mexican asylum seekers so high when conditions in that country are so violent?
First, let’s look at the statistics. Perhaps the situation today is not quite so dire as the historical data suggests. According to the Department of Justice, for FY 2012, there were 9,206 applications for asylum from Mexico received by the Immigration Courts. In the same year, the Courts granted 126 cases and denied 1,395 (an additional 337 Mexican cases were granted by the Asylum Offices, but I have seen no data on the total number of Mexican applications, so we do not know the success rate before the Asylum Offices – see DHS Statistics, Table 17). Another 138 cases were abandoned, 1,906 were withdrawn, and 2,335 were resolved in other ways. “Other” cases are mostly people who changed venue, but also people who received some other type of relief from removal. Presumably “abandoned” and “withdrawn” cases might also include people who received some other type of relief.
So just looking at granted (126) vs. denied (1,395), we have an 8.3% grant rate. But since this does not include people granted Withholding of Removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture or some other type of relief (Cancellation of Removal or adjustment of status), we can safely assume that the number of Mexican asylum seekers who win their court cases is significantly higher (with “win” being broadly defined, as not everyone who gets CAT relief views it as a win).
Even if the grant rate is not as low as previously believed, it is still pretty darn low. Why?
One reason that the success rate for Mexican asylum seekers is so low may be that Mexican applications tend to be defensive (i.e., filed as a defense after the applicant is in removal proceedings) rather than affirmative. Although I have not seen any data on this, it is probably safe to assume that most Mexican cases are filed defensively. This is because the majority (61%) of aliens residing unlawfully in the U.S. are from Mexico, so it stands to reason that they would represent the largest group in removal proceedings. People in removal proceedings who have no other option tend to file for asylum as a last ditch effort to remain in the U.S. Such people are less likely to succeed (see DHS Statistics, page K2) for several reasons. For one, they are usually filing outside the one-year filing deadline and are thus probably ineligible for asylum. Also, some of these asylum seekers will be detained, which makes it much harder to successfully litigate their cases. Finally, some of these people will be in removal proceedings due to a criminal conviction, which also makes it more difficult (or impossible) to win an asylum case.
So while there are some legitimate explanations for the low denial rate of Mexican asylum seekers, could there be other, less proper, reasons? Mr. Gutierrez and his lawyer Mr. Spector suggest two possibilities: One, that because Mexico is a neighboring country, we tend to deny their asylum claims at a higher rate. This has been called the “floodgate” argument–if we grant asylum too easily to Mexicans, it will open the floodgates and we will be inundated with Mexican applicants. And two, adjudicators in the U.S. do not properly recognize that claims related to cartel violence are really political claims because the cartels and the Mexican state are inextricably linked (asylum claims can be granted based on political persecution, but generally not based on fear of criminal violence).
Although I have no evidence to back it up, I think there is something to the floodgate argument. Decision-makers are certainly aware that granting asylum to large numbers of Mexicans will likely lead to more people coming to the U.S. Combine this with the fact that these cases are relatively easy to deny (since they usually do not fall neatly within one of the five protected categories) and you have a strong incentive to reject Mexican asylum claims.
I am a bit more skeptical of the argument that these cases are “political,” since the government and the cartels are connected. Even if the government is doing the persecuting, that does not necessarily mean that the persecution is political. It may simply be (as it seems) that the criminals and their government allies are trying to steal money from the people. Under current asylum law, it is difficult to argue that this–by itself–is a basis for asylum.
Finally, there is no doubt that many Mexicans–including Mr. Gutierrez–face dire circumstances. Perhaps there needs to be a change in the law to help them, even when they do not meet the legal definition of “refugee.” If we can help Chinese people victimized by forced family planning, and Cubans (whether they have been victimized or not), shouldn’t we do something to help our Mexican neighbors who are daily threatened, harmed, and murdered by the cartels?
Last week when I wrote about Dream Activists and Asylum Seekers, I caused a bit of a kerfuffle. Hopefully, today, I will do better, and this post won’t be quite so kerfuffle-inducing (and yes, I plan to see how many times I can use the word “kerfuffle” in one post – according to Carl Kasell, so far that’s three).
First, a bit of housekeeping. If you have not read my post from last week, this entry will be harder to follow.
Probably the main objection to my posting last week was my insinuation that the asylum claims of the Dream 30 were not legitimate. However, based on the comments from their attorneys/advocates David Bennion and Mathew Kolken, it seems that the claims are legitimate, and so I will take that as a given for purposes of this blog post.
Explaining stuff helps us understand.
With that as background, there are two issues I want to discuss: (1) From a moral and policy point of view, is there any problem with using the Dream 30’s asylum cases to promote a political agenda (the Dream Act) when that agenda is unrelated to the substance of the asylum claim (fear of persecution in Mexico)? and (2) Will this strategy move the Dream Activists closer to their goal?
Political asylum cases are, by their nature, political (duh). This means that the claimants have a political agenda. Normally, that agenda relates to the substance of their claim. For example, I represented a Pakistani journalist who opposed the government and faced persecution because of his activities. After he received asylum, he spoke about his case in the media to try to gain attention for his cause. This seems perfectly legitimate.
The journalist’s case is different from the Dream Activists, in that the activists are not publicizing their cases to highlight the political situation in Mexico. Instead, they are highlighting the failure of the U.S. government to pass immigration reform. I worried that this use of asylum would somehow damage the asylum system. So are the Dream Activists under any obligation to justify their actions? And, if so, is there a justification for using the asylum system in this manner?
First, why should the Dream 30 be required to justify their use of the asylum system as a form of protest? They have legitimate reasons for seeking asylum, and if they want to use their cases to gain attention for the Dream Act or for any other cause, isn’t that their business? Speaking for myself, without such a justification, I find it very difficult to support their political action (though I certainly support their right to seek asylum, as per the letter from Bill Ong Hing). Although it may sound corny, having represented hundreds of asylum seekers, I believe that our system of asylum is, in some ways, sacred. It is a system that is designed to–and does–save lives. If that system is going to be used for some ulterior motive, I, for one, would like an explanation.
I can image some possible justifications: Maybe the activists think publicizing these cases will help advance immigration reform; maybe they want to demonstrate that when undocumented immigrants leave the U.S., their lives are at risk; maybe they want to alert other Dream Act-eligible people to the possibility that they might avoid removal by seeking asylum; maybe they want to inspire other undocumented people to come forward; or perhaps there is another reason for their actions that I have not thought of. My point being, it would be nice to know what the Dream Activists want.
The second big question for me is whether the strategy of publicizing the Dreamers’ asylum claims will accomplish their political goal (whatever that might be). Assuming the goal is immigration reform of some kind, I have seen no explanation for how publicizing these asylum cases will move our country towards that goal.
Certainly, it could simply be that I am ill informed. However, I am more than a casual observer, and I am not a complete idiot (at least on my better days). So if I don’t get it, probably many others don’t either. The Dream activists have done an extraordinary job of publicizing the Dream 30 (and the Dream 9 before them), but they have failed to capitalize on this initial attention to move the discussion in a positive direction. Indeed, it seems to me that they have completely lost the initiative, as the discussion has bogged down in internecine internet warfare. Maybe if the Dreamers had been more clear from the beginning about their goals and strategy, the debate over these issues would not have taken such an unproductive turn.
It is not too late for the Dream Activists to re-take the initiative and extricate themselves from the unproductive tit-for-tat with other immigrant advocates. For a start, they need to clearly explain a few things: (1) When and under what circumstances did the members of the Dream 30 leave the U.S. and why are they seeking asylum (their lawyer David Bennion did a pretty good job of this in response to my blog post from last week); (2) What is the ultimate goal of the Dream Activists; and (3) How does the action at the border help achieve that goal.
For me–and, I suspect, for others–clear answers to these questions would be a good way to begin a productive dialogue about goals and strategy, and would go a long way towards bringing us on board with the Dream Activists’ plan. But for now, without a good explanation, I am simply not convinced that the Dreamers’ actions have done anything to advance the cause of undocumented people, asylum seekers, or immigration reform.
The following letter is from Bill Ong Hing to President Obama. Professor Hing is a well known advocate for immigrants. He is currently a professor of law at the University of San Francisco. Prof. Hing writes about the Dream 30 credible fear cases that were rejected (about eight cases have been rejected so far; one person was deported). He is concerned that the cases have been rejected based on an unfair and incorrect legal standard. He puts the Dream 30 cases into historical perspective and argues that the rejection of these credible fear applicants is reminiscent of previous failures by our government to protect refugees.
I am not fully convinced by his conclusions, as I discussed in my last blog entry (in short, I think there are–or at least, may be–legitimate reasons why the Dreamers’ credible fear applications would be denied at a higher than average rate). However, his analysis is important and deserves attention, especially since we would not want to repeat the tragic history that he recounts. His letter is kind of long (he is a law professor), but well worth a read if you are following this debate. Enjoy:
November 4, 2013
President Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, DC
Re: Dream 30 and Credible Fear
Dear President Obama:
I write to you today with grave concern for the “Dream 30”, young people who arrived at the Laredo Port of Entry on September 30th and requested both humanitarian parole and asylum. Twenty-six of these young people are currently detained at the El Paso Processing Center, and all have received credible fear interviews after expressing fear of returning to Mexico (or, in one case, Peru). However, seven have received negative determinations of credible fear and may now be subject to removal, and I am concerned that an unreasonable standard for credible fear has been imposed. I urge you to intervene in the credible fear screenings to ensure that the proper, more generous credible fear standard be followed.
President Obama reads Professor Hing’s letter.
The immigration system allows for those who express a fear of return at our borders to receive a credible fear interview, rather than being summarily deported. This is essential to protecting those who may face danger abroad, but have little understanding of our legal system and few resources with which to prove their case. And it is essential to maintaining the United States as a safe haven for those who have been persecuted at home. The credible fear concept functions as a pre-screening standard that is broader and less rigorous than the “well-founded fear of persecution” standard that is required for an actual asylum application. A finding of credible fear merely gives the prospective immigrant the opportunity to apply for asylum in removal proceedings. Without this more generous screening standard, the nation risks returning immigrants to grave dangers, including situations involving political violence, police corruption, gang violence, and torture. For this very reason, the denial rate for credible fear interviews was less than 9 percent.
The negative credible fear findings thus far in the seven Dream 30 cases are worrisome. The apparent cursory fashion in which these negative decisions were made are reminiscent of three tragic procedural eras in the asylum history related to Central America refugees, Haitian refugees, and Jewish refugees from Europe during World War II.
Treatment of Central American Refugees
The Ninth Circuit opinion in Orantes-Hernandez v. Smith, 919 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1990), reveals that immigration officials engaged in a strategy that foreclosed the opportunity to apply for asylum for Salvadorans during the 1980s.
Generally, after aliens were apprehended, either border patrol agents or INS officers processed them. INS processing of detained aliens consisted of an interrogation combined with the completion of various forms, including form I-213, “Record of Deportable Alien,” and the presentation of form I-274 “Request for Voluntary Departure.” Although the arrested Salvadorans were eligible to apply for political asylum and to request a deportation hearing prior to their departure from the United States, the vast majority of Salvadorans apprehended signed voluntary departure agreements that commenced a summary removal process. Once a person signed for voluntary departure in the course of INS processing, he or she was subject to removal from the United States as soon as transportation could be arranged. A person given administrative voluntary departure in this manner never had a deportation hearing, the only forum before which the detained person could seek political asylum and mandatory withholding of deportation.
The Smith court found that the widespread acceptance of voluntary departure was due in large part to the coercive effects of the practices and procedures employed by INS and the unfamiliarity of most Salvadorans with their rights under United States immigration laws. INS agents directed, intimidated, or coerced Salvadorans in custody who had no expressed desire to return to El Salvador, to sign form I-274 for voluntary departure. INS agents used a variety of techniques to procure voluntary departure, ranging from subtle persuasion to outright threats and misrepresentations. Many Salvadorans were intimidated or coerced to accept voluntary departure even when they had unequivocally expressed a fear of returning to El Salvador. Even when an individual refused to sign form I-214, “Waiver of Rights,” INS officers felt that they could present the person with the voluntary departure form.
The court also found that INS processing officers engaged in a pattern and practice of misrepresenting the meaning of political asylum and of giving improper and incomplete legal advice, which denied arrested Salvadorans meaningful understanding of the options presented and discouraged them from exercising available rights. INS officers and agents routinely advised Salvadorans of the negative aspects of choosing a deportation hearing without informing them of the positive options that were available. Without informing them that voluntary departure could be requested at a deportation hearing, INS officers advised detainees that if they did not sign for voluntary departure they could be formally deported from the United States, and that such a deportation would preclude their legal re-entry without the pardon of the Attorney General.
INS officers and agents routinely told Salvadoran detainees that if they applied for asylum they would remain in detention for a long time, without mentioning the possibility of release on bond. Similarly, without advising that an immigration judge could lower the bond amount and that there were bond agencies that could provide assistance, INS agents regularly told detainees that if they did not sign for voluntary departure they would remain detained until bond was posted. Some agents told individuals the monetary bond amount they could expect or the bond amount given to other Salvadorans, without telling them that the bond amount ultimately depended upon the circumstances of the individual.
INS officers commonly told detainees that if they applied for asylum, the application would be denied, or that Salvadorans did not get asylum. INS officers and agents represented that Salvadorans ultimately would be deported regardless of the asylum application. INS officers and agents misrepresented the eligibility for asylum by saying that it was only given to guerillas or to soldiers. INS processing agents or officers further discouraged Salvadorans from applying for asylum by telling them that the information on the application would be sent to El Salvador, and stating that asylum applicants would never be able to return to El Salvador. INS processing officers also used the threat of transfer to remote locations as a means of discouraging detained Salvadorans from exercising their rights to a hearing and to pursuing asylum claims.
Furthermore, INS agents often did not allow Salvadorans to consult with counsel prior to signing the voluntary departure forms, although they acknowledged that aliens had this right. Even those Salvadorans fortunate enough to secure legal representation were often unable to avoid voluntary departure, as INS’ practice was to refuse to recognize the authority of counsel until a formal notice of representation (Form G-28) was filed. Due to the rapid processing of Salvadoran detainees, it was often physically impossible for counsel to locate their clients and file Form G-28 before the client was removed from the country.
In conclusion, the Smith court noted:
The record before this Court establishes that INS engages in a pattern and practice of pressuring or intimidating Salvadorans who remain detained after the issuance of an OSC to request voluntary departure or voluntary deportation to El Salvador. There is substantial evidence of INS detention officers urging, cajoling, and using friendly persuasion to pressure Salvadorans to recant their requests for a hearing and to return voluntarily to El Salvador. That this conduct is officially condoned, even in the face of complaints, demonstrates that it is a de facto policy. The existence of a policy of making daily announcements about the availability of voluntary departure, coupled with the acknowledgement that the policy is designed to free-up scarce detention space, supports the conclusion that INS detention officers make a practice of pressuring detained Salvadorans to return to El Salvador. This conduct is not the result of isolated transgressions by a few overzealous officers, but, in fact, is a widespread and pervasive practice akin to a policy. . . . This pattern of misconduct flows directly from the attitudes and misconceptions of INS officers and their superiors as to the merits of Salvadoran asylum claims and the motives of class members who flee El Salvador and enter this country.
Thus, the court entered the following order:
1. [INS and border patrol agents] shall not employ threats, misrepresentation, subterfuge or other forms of coercion, or in any other way attempt to persuade or dissuade class members when informing them of the availability of voluntary departure pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b). The prohibited acts include, but are not limited to:
(a) Misrepresenting the meaning of political asylum and giving improper and incomplete legal advice to detained class members;
(b) Telling class members that if they apply for asylum they will remain in detention for a long period of time, without mentioning the possibility of release on bond or indicating that bond can be lowered by an immigration judge and that there are bond agencies which can provide assistance;
(c) Telling Salvadoran detainees the amount of bond given to other class members, without indicating that the bond amount ultimately depends upon the circumstances of the individual class member;
(d) Telling class members that their asylum applications will be denied, that Salvadorans do not get asylum, or that asylum is only available to guerillas or soldiers;
(e) Representing to class members that the information on the asylum application will be sent to El Salvador;
(f) Representing to class members that asylum applicants will never be able to return to El Salvador;
(g) Indicating that Salvadoran detainees will be transferred to remote locations if they do not elect voluntary departure;
(h) Advising Salvadorans of the negative aspects of choosing a deportation hearing without informing them of the positive options that are available;
(i) Refusing to allow class members to contact an attorney; and
(j) Making daily announcements at detention facilities of the availability of voluntary departure.
The bias that INS officials and asylum corps officers exhibited toward both Guatemalan and Salvadoran asylum applicants was further exposed in American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F.Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991). As the New York Times reported on the case:
Such applications have long presented the Government with an embarrassing choice. The United States supports the Governments of El Salvador and Guatemala, and at the same time it is asked by asylum applicants to find that they have a “well-founded fear of persecution” if they are returned home. Every approval of an application for political asylum thus amounts to an admission that the United States is aiding governments that violate the civil rights of their own citizens.
Since 1980 the Government has denied 97 percent of applications for political asylum by El Salvadorans and 99 percent of those by Guatemalans. During the same time, applications for political asylum by Eastern Europeans, Nicaraguans and residents of other countries have a high percentage of approval. For example, 76 percent of applications by residents of the Soviet Union were approved, as were 64 percent of those by residents of China.
A settlement was reached requiring the INS to readjudicate the asylum claims of certain Salvadorans and Guatemalans who were present in the United States as of 1990, and who had sought immigration benefits. The case, known as the “ABC litigation” began in 1985 as a nationwide class action on behalf of Salvadorans and Guatemalans. The plaintiffs alleged that the INS and the Executive Office of Immigration Review were biased in their asylum adjudication process for those two nationalities. Under the settlement, these Central Americans were eligible for new asylum interviews.
Unfair Treatment of Haitian Asylum Applicants
In Haitian Refugee Center v. Smith, 676 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1982), the Fifth Circuit chastised the federal government for unfair processes that were imposed on Haitian asylum applicants. In response to the repressive Duvalier regime that caused political and economic havoc in Haiti in the 1970s, many Haitians fled to the United States seeking refuge. Large numbers sought asylum once they reached the shores of Florida. A backlog developed, so INS officials implemented an accelerated program to deal with the situation. The program of accelerated processing to which the Haitians were subjected by the INS-termed the “Haitian Program”- embodied the government’s response to the tremendous backlog of Haitian deportation cases that had accumulated in the INS Miami district office by the summer of 1978. By June of that year between six and seven thousand unprocessed Haitian deportation cases were pending in the Miami office. These staggering numbers were not the result of a massive influx of Haitians to south Florida over a short period. Although significant numbers of Haitians had entered the United States from Haiti and the Bahamas in the spring of 1978, the backlog was primarily attributable to a slow trickle of Haitians over a ten-year period and to the confessed inaction of the INS in dealing with these aliens.
Many officials provided input in the planning process of the Haitian project. Assigned by the Deputy Commissioner of the INS with the task of assessing the Haitian situation in Miami, INS Regional Commissioner Armand J. Salturelli submitted the recommendation, among others, that processing could be expedited by ceasing the practice of suspending deportation hearings upon the making of an asylum claim. Salturelli acknowledged that this would contravene internal operations procedures, but suggested that those procedures should be cancelled or “at least be suspended insofar as Haitians are concerned.” One July 1978 report from the Intelligence Division of INS to the Associate Director of Enforcement advised in absolute terms that the Haitians were “economic” and not political refugees and, in belated recognition of the obvious, warned the Enforcement Division that favorable treatment of these Haitians would encourage further immigration. Associate Director of Enforcement, Charles Sava, later visited Miami to find space for holding an increased number of deportation hearings and to discuss with Miami personnel the processing of Haitians. Out of those discussions arose recommended deterrence measures, which Sava outlined in a letter to Deputy Commissioner Noto. These included detention of arriving Haitians likely to abscond, blanket denials of work permits for Haitians, swift expulsion of Haitians from the United States, and enforcement actions against smugglers.
Planning of the Haitian program culminated in a memorandum sent on August 20, 1978 by Deputy Commissioner Noto to INS Commissioner Leonel J. Castillo. The memo explained the basic mechanics of the accelerated processing already being implemented in the Miami district office. Among the specifics set forth were the assignment of additional immigration judges to Miami, the instructions to immigration judges to effect a three-fold increase in productivity, and orders for the blanket issuance of show cause orders in all pending Haitian deportation cases.
In accordance with the goal of high productivity demanded of the Miami office, Acting District Director Gullage issued a memorandum to all personnel in the office, stating “processing of these cases cannot be delayed in any manner or in any way. All supervisory personnel are hereby ordered to take whatever action they deem necessary to keep these cases moving through the system.” The Haitian cases were processed at an unprecedented rate. Prior to the Haitian program only between one and ten deportation hearings were conducted each day. During the program, immigration judges held fifty-five hearings per day, or approximately eighteen per judge. At the program’s peak the schedule of deportation hearings increased to as many as eighty per day.
At the show cause or deportation hearing, the immigration judges refused to suspend the hearing when an asylum claim was advanced, requiring the Haitians instead to respond to the pleadings in the show cause order and proceed to a finding of deportability. The order entered by the judge allowed the Haitian ten days for filing an asylum claim with the district director, then ten days to request withholding of deportation from the immigration judge if the asylum deadline was not met. Failure to seek withholding in a timely manner effected automatic entry of a deportation order.
Deportation hearings were not the only matter handled during the Haitian program. Asylum interviews also were scheduled at the rate of forty per day. Immigration officers who formerly had worked at the airport were enlisted as hearing officers for these interviews. Prior to the program such interviews had lasted an hour and a half; during the program the officer devoted approximately one-half hour to each Haitian. In light of the time-consuming process of communication through interpreters, the court concluded that only fifteen minutes of substantive dialogue took place. Consistent with the result-oriented program designed to achieve numerical goals in processing, the Travel Control section in the Miami office recorded the daily totals of asylum applications processed. The tally sheet contained space only for the total number of denials; there was no column for recording grants of asylum.
Hearings on requests for withholding deportation also were being conducted simultaneously with asylum and deportation hearings, at several different locations. It was not unusual for an attorney representing Haitians to have three hearings at the same hour in different buildings; this kind of scheduling conflict was a daily occurrence for attorneys throughout the Haitian program. The INS was fully aware that only approximately twelve attorneys were available to represent the thousands of Haitians being processed, and that scheduling made it impossible for counsel to attend the hearings. It anticipated the scheduling conflicts that in fact occurred. Nevertheless the INS decided that resolving the conflicts was “too cumbersome for us to handle” and adopted the attitude that everything would simply work out.
Under these circumstances, the court concluded that the INS had knowingly made it impossible for Haitians and their attorneys to prepare and file asylum applications in a timely manner. The court found that adequate preparation of an asylum application required between ten and forty hours of an attorney’s time. The court further estimated that if each of the attorneys available to represent the Haitians “did nothing during a 40 hour week except prepare [asylum applications], they would have been able to devote only about 2 hours to each client.”
The results of the accelerated program adopted by INS are revealing. None of the over 4,000 Haitians processed during this program were granted asylum.
In the end, the federal court of appeals struck down the accelerated program as a violation of procedural due process. The government was forced to submit a procedurally fair plan for the orderly reprocessing of the asylum applications of the Haitian applicants who had not been deported.
Turning Away Jewish Refugees During World War II
In the 1930s, for example, the United States turned away thousands of Jews fleeing Nazi persecution (e.g., SS St. Louis), in large part because of powerful restrictionist views against certain ethnic, religious, and racial groups. Congress and U.S. consular officers consistently resisted Jewish efforts to emigrate and impeded any significant emergency relaxation of limitations on quotas.
The plight of European Jews fleeing Nazi Germany aboard the ship SS St. Louis in 1939 is a horrific example of how restrictionist views were manifested toward refugees at the time. In a diabolical propaganda ploy in the Spring of 1939, the Nazis had allowed this ship carrying destitute European Jewish refugees to leave Hamburg bound for Cuba, but had arranged for corrupt Cuban officials to deny them entry even after they had been granted visas. It was the objective of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels to prove that no country wanted the Jews. The St. Louis was not allowed to discharge its passengers and was ordered out of Havana harbor. As it sailed North, it neared United States territorial waters. The U.S. Coast Guard warned it away. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had said that the United States could not accept any more European refugees because of immigration quotas, as untold thousands had already fled Nazi terror in Central Europe and many had come to the depression-racked United States.
Nearly two months after leaving Hamburg, and due to the efforts of U.S. Jewish refugee assistance groups, the ship was allowed to land in Holland. Four nations agreed to accept the refugees—Great Britain, Holland, Belgium and France. Two months later, the Nazis invaded Poland and the Second World War began. Over 600 of the 937 passengers on the St. Louis were killed by the Nazis before the war was over. When the United States refused the St. Louis permission to land, many Americans were embarrassed; when the country found out after the war what happened to the refugees, they were ashamed.
Closing
Recognizing credible fear is not a grant of asylum. It merely recognizes that the person has shown a significant possibility that that the applicant can meet the standard for asylum before an immigration judge. It simply gives the person a chance for a fair hearing in an immigration court.
The standard for credible fear is not meant to be high. In a case that I litigated, NS v Cardosa-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum can be met even when a 10 percent chance of persecution is established. And the credible fear standard is meant to be an even lower burden than well-founded fear.
The Dream 30 are young people that deserve fair treatment. Your administration should not be associated with the tragic asylum eras of the past that I have outlined above. Politics should not get in the way. I urge you to treat them fairly in their bid for refuge in this country and to give their cases due consideration. If they have a credible fear, they should be allowed to make a case for asylum in front of an immigration judge, rather than be subject to expedited removal. I urge you to protect the integrity of the asylum system that has been designed to be symbol of hope and freedom throughout the world.
Sincerely,
Bill Ong Hing
Professor of Law, University of San Francisco
Professor of Law Emeritus, University of California, Davis
This letter was published with permission from Prof. Hing. The footnote has been omitted.
By now, you’re probably familiar with the Dream 30, a group of 30 young Dreamers: 29 Mexicans and one Peruvian who grew up in the U.S. and who would likely benefit from the Dream Act. The group voluntarily left the United States, returned to Mexico, and then presented themselves at the U.S. border and requested asylum. The point is to call attention to the plight of all young people in their position, stop deportations of such people, and push immigration reform.
The 30 activists were detained and interviewed about whether they had a credible fear of return to Mexico. According to their attorney David Bennion, 9 of 25 interviewed Dreamers were found not to have a credible fear of return. This is significantly above the average denial rate, which was about 8.3% for FY2013. Mr. Bennion points out that the Dreamers should have done better–not worse–than average, given that they are generally well educated and speak English. Based on this, attorney and Dream 30 supporter Mathew Kolken smells a rat. He writes, “Looks like the [Obama] administration is making an example out of the DREAM 30 in order to make a political point.”
I don’t remember the Freedom Riders running over other poor people to reach their goal.
Of the original group, eight were released and the remainder have been detained since September 30, 2013 (even some who have demonstrated a credible fear). The detained Dreamers are currently on a hunger strike to call attention to their cause.
The most recent news is that one of the Dreamers was deported to Mexico.
As an asylum attorney, I must admit that I have mixed feelings about the strategy of these activists. But before I get to that, I want to raise an objection to Mr. Kolken’s conclusion that the high denial rate for the Dream 30’s credible fear interviews is evidence that the Obama Administration is somehow punishing these activists.
It is true that the Dreamer’s denial rate (36%) is much higher than the over-all denial rate (8.3%) for credible fear interviews. However, there are several (legitimate) factors working against the Dreamers. For one, they are mostly from Mexico, which has a very low asylum grant rate. Since something like 98% of Mexican asylum claims are denied, it stands to reason that credible fear cases from Mexico will be less likely to succeed than average. Since Mr. Kolken is comparing the 36% denial rate of the (Mexican) Dreamers to the 8.3% denial rate for all countries, many of which have very high asylum grant rates, it really is not a fair comparison. In addition, the Dreamers were in the United States, and then they voluntarily departed (though one could argue that they were forced to leave due to their lack of papers). Asylum claimants who voluntarily return to their home countries are much less likely to succeed when compared to asylum applicants who did not return to the country of feared persecution. I am not sure how much of a factor this is, as some aspects of the asylum claims may have arisen since the Dreamers returned to Mexico, but my guess is that the voluntary return weakens the Dreamers’ asylum and credible fear claims. For these reasons, I am not convinced that the 36% denial rate is all that unusual (though the fact that several Dreamers have passed their credible fear interviews and yet remain detained is somewhat unusual). So for me, at least, the jury is still out as to whether the Obama Administration (or ICE/Enforcement and Removal Operations, which often defies the Obama Administration) is retaliating against the Dreamers.
Now to the mixed feelings.
On the one hand, I can appreciate creative acts of civil disobedience as much as the next middle-age, father-of-two, with-a-mortgage-to-pay guy. It’s also quite clear that the Dream Activists are earnest and passionate, and that they are gaining attention for the cause (hopefully more positive than negative).
On the other hand, as an attorney who represents asylum seekers, I am concerned about their tactical decision to use the asylum system as the vehicle for their civil disobedience. While it appears that at least some of the Dreamers returned to Mexico and then found that the situation was unsafe, the fact remains that they left the U.S. without seeking asylum and returned to Mexico. They then presented themselves at the border and requested asylum. If the Dreamers actually had a fear of returning to Mexico, they should have requested asylum before they left. Indeed, a major factor in any asylum case where the applicant returns to her country is the return trip itself. Without a good explanation or evidence of changed circumstances since the date of return, a return trip to the home country will doom most asylum applications.
Also, to some extent, the asylum system is already under siege, and I fear that using that system to make a political point will do further damage. I don’t want to overstate the case here. There are those who blame the Dreamers for the current mess at the border (asylum offices across the country have ground to a halt as resources have been shifted to deal with a dramatic increase in credible fear interviews at the border), but that problem started long before the Dream 30 (or their predecessors, the Dream 9). Nevertheless, the actions of the Dream 9 and the Dream 30 are certainly the most high profile credible fear cases at the border, and their leadership may encourage others to try to exploit the credible fear system.
Finally, I can’t help but view this tension–Dreamers vs. Asylum Seekers–as a case of the poor eating the poor: Desperate people trying to regularize their status are using a tactic that harms other desperate people fleeing persecution. While I hope (against the odds) that we will have a DREAM Act and Comprehensive Immigration Reform, I am not convinced that using the asylum system to make a political point in support of those goals is the best strategy. I fear that the collateral damage to legitimate asylum seekers will be too great.
In the Ethiopian-American community, at long last, the hunters have become the hunted.
Members of the community have created a new website to share information and help bring to justice Ethiopian human rights abusers living in the United States. The founders of the website, called YaTewlid (meaning “The Generation”), are themselves torture survivors. They have been inspired by a few recent prosecutions of Ethiopian human rights abusers in the United States.
The most recent case involved a high-ranking prison guard during the time of the Red Terror in Ethiopia (1977-78). Earlier this month, Kefelgn Alemu Worku was convicted of immigration fraud after he entered the U.S. using a false name and lied about his background. According to the Denver Post, those who witnessed against him testified that Mr. Kefelgn tortured and murdered hundreds of prisoners, including one witnesses’ best friend. Mr. Kefelgn faces up to 22 years in prison (for the fraud) and then deportation to Ethiopia where, presumably, he would not receive a friendly reception.
Kefelgn Alemu Worku proves that time wounds all heels.
As an aside, Mr. Kefelgn’s case demonstrates why the various immigration forms ask questions like, Are you a persecutor? or Have you ever committed a crime? On their face, the questions seems silly–what self-respecting persecutor would admit that he was a persecutor? The U.S. government does not necessarily expect persecutors and criminals to admit their misdeeds (though that would be nice). Rather, if the government discovers evidence that the alien is a persecutor, it is a lot easier to prosecute him for immigration fraud than for the actual crimes he committed in his country. And that is exactly what happened to Mr. Kefelgn. He was prosecuted not for his war crimes, but instead for his immigration fraud (this reminds me of how the government prosecuted Al Capone for tax evasion rather than murder).
As of this writing, the YaTewlid website is only in Amharic, but its founders hope to have an English version in the future. I had an Amharic-speaking friend check it out. She reports that the website needs some work, but it will potentially be a useful tool for uncovering human rights abusers living in the U.S.
It seems to me that DHS/ICE would do well to talk to groups such as YaTewlid, since the people best able to ferret out criminals (and fraudsters) are members of the various immigrant communities.
Indeed, ICE does have a special unit, called the Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Unit (HRVWCU – though I think they need a more sexy acronym), which is part of the National Security Investigations Division. According to its website, HRVWCU–
conducts investigations focused on human rights violations in an effort to prevent the United States from becoming a safe haven to those individuals who engage in the commission of war crimes, genocide, torture, and other forms of serious human rights abuses from conflicts around the globe.
The unit has had its fair share of successes. Again, from the website:
Since fiscal year 2004, ICE has arrested more than 250 individuals for human rights-related violations under various criminal and/or immigration statutes. During that same period, ICE has denied more than 117 individuals from obtaining entry visas to the United States and created more than 20,000 subject records, which prevented identified human-rights violators from attempting to enter the United States. In addition, ICE successfully obtained deportation orders to physically remove more than 590 known or suspected human rights violators from the United States. Currently, ICE is pursuing more than 1,900 leads and removal cases that involve suspected human rights violators from nearly 96 different countries.
The efforts of HRVWCU are crucial to preventing human rights abusers from taking advantage of our immigration and asylum systems, and to protecting the integrity of those systems. The cooperation of community groups such as YaTewlid is also crucial to this effort.
It is in the interest of everyone–government, immigrant groups, and “the system”– to find, punish, and deport human rights abusers. Only in this way can we provide some justice for the victims and keep the door open to legitimate refugees who need our protection.
Before they can receive asylum, every applicant must undergo a security background check. But what exactly does the government check? And how can they learn about an applicant’s background when she spent most of her life outside the United States?
To me, these security background checks have always been a bit of a mystery. I’ve heard that the checks involve multiple agencies (FBI, State Department, etc.) and multiple data bases, but I did not know much more than that. Now, a recent article has shed some light on at least one type of background check: The FBI’s Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center (TEDAC) operates the nation’s “bomb library,” which keeps data on explosive devices used in terrorist attacks. TEDAC is directed by Greg Carl and operates out of Quantico, Virginia.
Each bomb maker leaves a unique signature.
TEDAC analyzes the “remnants of improvised explosive devices… in hopes of recovering latent prints from the insurgent bomb makers who crafted them.” The Center has created a “comprehensive database of known terrorists for all law enforcement, the U.S. intelligence community and the military to share.” The Center has received evidence from the “underwear bomber,” the Boston Marathon bombing, and from attacks all across the world. The evidence collected by TEDAC comes from “bombings in as many as 25 countries from as far as the Horn of Africa and Southeast Asia, in addition to the United States:”
More than 100,000 boxes of evidence have been collected so far. They contain more than a million fragments fashioned from ordinary objects, which are barcoded and labeled before going through a wide array of forensic examinations, including toolmark identification, which allows matches of fragments to be made. Every scrap is searched for clues to a bomber’s identity.
The Center’s work seems to be effective. “According to Mary Kathryn Book, a physical scientist with the lab, ‘Approximately 60% of the time, we are able to recover prints from these items through fingerprint processing. And then later these prints are searched in our database and we attempt to identify the individuals who left them.'”
One project that is directly relevant to refugees and asylum seekers is the ongoing examination of IED material from Iraq to determine if “any Iraqi refugees relocated in the United States may be tied to IED attacks, as was the case with two Iraqi refugees based in Kentucky.” (I wrote about this issue here).
Unfortunately, our Congress has decided to cut funds from TEDAC (well, “decided” might not be accurate – they simply slashed and burned the budget indiscriminately). For all of us, there is the concern that we will be less safe due to these budget cuts. For asylum seekers fleeing persecution, it likely also means more delays for security background checks. This means longer insecurity and separation from family. In the unlikely event that Congress gets its act together, we can only hope that TEDAC will receive the funds it needs to keep operating effectively.
It seems that advocates for “Dreamers”–young foreigners who would benefit from the Dream Act–are trying a new tactic: Leaving the country and then returning to seek asylum. Not long ago, I wrote about the Dream 9, who presented themselves at the U.S./Mexico border and requested asylum. They were released and will have to appear before Immigration Judges, who will decide their cases. Now, we have the Dream 30, who have done pretty much the same thing. This new tactic holds promise and risk, both for themselves and for other asylum seekers.
“Dreamers” might be a particular social group, but I am not so sure about “dreamboats.”
Asylum, of course, is a legal tool that has been used and expanded by creative lawyers. When the modern asylum system was created by the Refugee Act of 1980, many people who routinely receive protection today–victims of female genital mutilation, LGBT individuals, victims of domestic violence–would likely have been ineligible for asylum. To the extent that their actions are not simply a type of civil disobedience, the Dreamers seem to be seeking to expand the category of protected individuals to include people who grew up in the U.S., and who face threats in their home countries because they are viewed as “American.” This strategy raises two basic questions: (1) Will it work? and (2) How will it affect other asylum seekers?
First, will it work? I think it might, at least in some cases. I’ve represented several asylum seekers who made claims similar to the Dreamers: A lesbian who had not been to her home country of Sudan since she was young, Afghan women (and a few men) who studied in the U.S. and who are viewed by extremists as “Westernized,” an Iraqi woman whose family was associated with the U.S. These applicants were successful (or their cases are still pending), but my guess is that their claims are stronger than most of the Dreamers’ claims. Nonetheless, the principle is the same.
A broader–and more radical–solution for the Dreamers might be if the Obama Administration defined them as a particular social group for asylum purposes. There is precedent for such a move: In 2009, DHS issued a brief in Matter of LR where it stated, “DHS accepts that in some cases, a victim of domestic violence may be a member of a cognizable particular social group…. This does not mean, however, that every victim of domestic violence would be eligible for asylum.” Prior to the end of DOMA, I (clumsily) advocated a similar approach to help LGBT couples.
If DHS agrees that deported Dreamers are a particular social group (defined as “young, Americanized Mexicans,” for example), they would then need to demonstrate that they face persecution in their home country based on their social group. DHS could potentially make a blanket determination that members of this social group would face persecution in Mexico, El Salvador or wherever, and – Voila! – Dreamers get asylum, and you effectively pass the Dream Act without Congressional action (and they could apply for asylum without leaving the U.S.).
Of course, there would be consequences to such an approach, which brings us to the second question: How will it affect other asylum seekers?
For one thing, unless significant resources were re-allocated, giving asylum to the Dreamers would completely overwhelm the asylum system. That system has already been ground to a halt by a few extra thousands arrivals at our border, so it certainly could not handle millions of new cases.
In addition, it would be very expensive. There are no government fees for asylum applications. Presumably, if the Dream Act becomes law, Dreamers will pay a fee to regularize their status. In general, USCIS is operated based on filing fees (that is why it has not been closed by the government shutdown), so these fees would be needed to adjudicate the Dreamers’ cases.
Third–and this for me is the real problem–it will harm (or destroy) the integrity of the asylum system. Asylum, by definition, is an individualized form of relief. While one person from a particular country may have a strong asylum case, another may have no case at all. To view these cases collectively sets a very bad precedent. Worse, to grant asylum to an entire group (i.e., Dreamers), many of whom probably would not otherwise qualify, turns the asylum system into a political tool for avoiding the normal legislative process (i.e., passing the Dream Act). Such a move would do great damage to the asylum system, a system that is supposed to be free from political influence.
Asylum as a blanket solution to the Dreamers’ dilemma is certainly not the best way to solve the problem. It would obviously be much better for Congress (specifically the House of Representatives) to pass the Dream Act and Comprehensive Immigration Reform. But as a strategic approach, perhaps the “threat” of giving asylum to all Dreamers might provide an incentive for the House to take up immigration reform. After all, the language of nihilism, self destruction, and ends-justifies-the-means is the only language that the House of Representatives seems to understand.
