Russia Angered by UK Asylum Grant

by Jason Dzubow

Recently, I wrote about people from friendly countries receiving asylum in the United States. There are few such cases, and they generally seem to be aberrations.  For these reasons, the source countries are not particularly concerned that we are granting asylum to their nationals.  That is not always the case, however. 

Russia called. They want their Baryshnikov back.
Russia called. They want their Baryshnikov back.

Earlier this month, the United Kingdom granted asylum to Andrey Borodin, a 45-year-old Russian banking tycoon, who owns Britain’s most expensive private house (it’s quite nice, as you can see here). Russian authorities accuse Mr. Borodin of bank fraud.  But Mr. Borodin claims that the charges were trumped up after he accused a key ally of President Vladimir Putin of corruption. The case became public after Mr. Borodin and his lawyer spoke to the press about receiving refuge in the UK (Britain, like the U.S., keeps such claims confidential).

Moscow was not pleased by the Brit’s offer of asylum:

The Russian premier’s press secretary Natalya Timakova said that the accusations against Mr. Borodin—who fled to London in April 2011—are of “pure criminal character” involving the Bank of Moscow, which he formerly owned. “There [is] now a practice of seeking political asylum, especially in England, whereby it doesn’t matter what the seeker has done,” she said. “What matters is how loudly he shouts about political persecution—and this will become a guarantee that the asylum will be granted.” Ms. Timakova accused Britain of ignoring that Interpol “is after him.” Moscow also insists that it would continue to demand Mr. Borodin’s extradition from Britain.

Mr. Borodin counters (probably correctly) that, “Any political asylum seeker must submit the application together with… proof showing the political character of the persecution in his native country.” “My lawyers submitted all necessary proof,” added Mr. Borodin. 

This case reminds me of one I worked on as a wee law clerk at the Arlington Immigration Court. Alexander Konanykhin was a Russian businessman in the roaring 90’s who made hundreds of millions of dollars. The Russian government eventually seized most of his assets and forced him to flee for his life. He made his way to the United States, but the Russians wanted him back and INS tried to deport him. After an epic trial in 1999, he received asylum. The asylum grant was overturned, but later (in 2007) re-instated, and Mr. Konanykhin is now a successful businessman in the United States. Although Mr. Konanykhin always seemed a bit shady to me, it was quite clear that the Russian government was up to no good. Mr. Konanykhin called the government a “Mafiocracy.” 

Between the UK and Russia, I will choose the UK, and–Gerard Depardieu notwithstanding–my bet is that there was ample evidence that Mr. Borodin faced persecution on account of his political activities. He would certainly not be the first Putin opponent to end up in jail (Mikhail Khodorkovsky) or dead (Anna Politkovskaya).

Russia can complain about Britain (or the U.S.) granting asylum to its nationals. But so long as those countries follow international human rights law, and so long as the Russian government continues to persecute its opponents, Russians will be able to obtain asylum in the West. To (badly) paraphrase The Bard: The fault, dear Putin, lies not in the asylum process, but in yourself.

Continue reading

The Needs of the Many Do Not Outweigh the Needs of the Few or the One

by Jason Dzubow

One of my clients was recently referred from the Asylum Office to Immigration Court due to his failure to file for asylum within one year of arrival in the United States. The client was not thrilled with the referral (as you can imagine) and with some other aspects of the interview, and so he filed a complaint with the Asylum Office. He did not tell me about the complaint until after he filed it. He said that he thought it would be better if I did not know, as it might jeopardize my other clients’ cases or my relationship with the Asylum Office.

In fact, there are times when advocating for one client might cause problems for future clients or relations with different government agencies. However, in immigration law, as in other areas of the law, the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few or the one (i.e., the client).

Lawyers of course must be zealous advocates for our clients. But what do we do when advocacy for one client might result in problems for future clients?

If Spock had been an immigration lawyer, things would not have ended well for the Enterprise.
If Mr. Spock had been an immigration lawyer, things would not have ended well for the Enterprise.

Another way this question comes up at the Asylum Office is at the interviews themselves. I tend to take a less confrontational approach, as that is what works for me. A lawyer friend of mine takes the opposite approach. He is always complaining to supervisors and threatening to sue. I don’t know which of us has a higher approval rate, but his method works for him. Nevertheless, you can imagine how a lawyer who is confrontational in one case might receive a less-than-warm reception when he appears before the officer in the next case. But does that mean he should tone it down in case A in order to benefit the client in case B?

The question can also arise in Immigration Court. I once appealed an Immigration Judge’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals and won. When I was before the IJ in an unrelated case, he called me to the bench and spoke to me about the appeal. He did not seem particularly pleased to have been reversed. It so happens that I have a lot of respect for this Judge, and I do not think the appeal impacted his view of me or my other cases. Nevertheless, when he mentioned the appeal to me that day, it raised those concerns in my mind.

As to whether lawyers should hold back in one case in order to avoid possible harm in future cases, I think the answer is clearly “no.” We are obligated to zealously advocate for each client without regard for how it might affect future case. Of course, “zealous advocacy” does not mean being disrespectful or behaving inappropriately. But zealous advocacy might involve making complaints. Or filing lawsuits.

When I think about the question of the needs of the current client versus the needs of a future client, I think about Paul Farmer. He is the doctor, described in Tracy Kidder’s Mountains Beyond Mountains, who has done tremendous work in Haiti (and elsewhere) helping care for the sick and establishing community health clinics. Dr. Farmer was often faced with patients whose treatment would be expensive and risky. Other health professionals felt that the (limited) money available to treat people might be better spent on helping more people who had a greater chance for a successful outcome. But Dr. Farmer seemed always to help the person in front of him, regardless of the cost. When he came to the next patient, he would gather the resources he needed and treat that person as well. From an ethical point of view, this comports with the idea that life is sacred, and that each human life is infinitely valuable.

I think it is the same in asylum law. We have to do our best with the case before us, regardless of whether it might jeopardize relations with an Asylum Officer or a Judge. In my experience, though, when we make arguments respectfully, and when those arguments are legally supportable, the adjudicators do not hold such behavior against us. So while the needs of a future client do not outweigh the needs of the current client, we usually do not have to choose between the two.

Continue reading

Seeking Asylum from Friendly Countries

by Jason Dzubow

A couple of recent articles got me thinking about how the U.S. handles asylum seekers coming from countries that we view as friends–Western-style democracies that generally respect human rights.

The first is an article from the Jewish Daily Forward (featuring a quote from my esteemed law partner, Todd Pilcher) about asylum seekers from Israel. The article found that 18 Israeli nationals sought asylum in Fiscal Year 2011. The article found that the asylees were a “strange and quirky mix:”

One, an Arab citizen of Israel, is a gay man who convinced authorities he would face violence from his own family and tribe if forced to return to Israel. Lack of adequate action by Israeli police played a role in the approval of the request, his attorney said. Another is an Israeli woman who suffered domestic abuse. She also received asylum after making the case that Israeli authorities were not protecting her. Yet a third is the son of a founder of Hamas who, after spying on the terrorist-designated group for Israeli authorities, felt unsafe under Israeli protection and fled to the United States in fear for his life [I wrote about this case here].

German citizens react to the news that one of their own has received asylum in the U.S.
German citizens react to the news that one of their own has received asylum in the U.S.

The second article is a follow-up on a homeschooler family that received asylum from Germany.  In that case, an Immigration Judge found that the family faced persecution in Germany after they refused for religious reasons to send their children to public school, as required by German law. The Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the IJ’s decision last May, and the homeschoolers filed a petition for review and a brief with the Sixth Circuit. The case is currently pending.

Other “Western” countries listed as source countries for asylum seekers in the U.S. include Argentina (9 people granted asylum in FY 2011), Brazil (20 people), Germany (4), Latvia (6), New Zealand (5), Poland (6), and the United Kingdom (8). These numbers are pretty small given the total of 24,988 people granted asylum in FY 2011, but such cases raise some interesting questions.

First, how do the source countries feel about a decision from the U.S. government that they are persecuting (or, at best, failing to protect from persecution) their own citizens? When asked by the Forward, an Israeli diplomat said that the scarcity of asylum cases in the United States did not require the Israeli government to bring up the issue with Washington. The official added that the few cases in which Israelis were granted asylum in America represented “unusual circumstances” and did not reflect on Israel’s democracy. I’d bet that like the Israelis, most Western democracies see these asylum cases as aberrations and aren’t particularly bothered by them. One country that is annoyed by our State Department’s practice of evaluating the human rights situation in other countries is China. In “retaliation” for our report, China issues its own report, which describes a litany of human rights abuses in the United States.

A related issue is whether–if the number of asylum cases form a particular allied country increased–that country could raise the issue diplomatically in order to curtail asylum grants. Theoretically, asylum should be independent of politics, but the Forward article raises the example of Israeli conscientious objectors who received asylum in Canada. Apparently, “Canada has approved dozens of asylum requests from individuals claiming political persecution by Israel since 2000.” According to the Forward, in 2006, the Israeli government protested Canada’s asylum policies. And in the past two years the number of Israelis receiving asylum in Canada has declined. If this is correct, and the decline in asylum grants is related to the Israeli protest, it raises serious concerns about the integrity of the Canadian asylum system.

Another question raised by these asylum cases is, how the heck do you get granted asylum from a country like New Zealand or the UK? My guess is that these cases involve very special circumstances, like victims of human trafficking who have not received adequate protection, or maybe sexual orientation cases where the person was subject to severe abuse. Another possibility is that the Immigration Judge and the DHS attorney agreed to grant asylum in order to address an otherwise inequitable situation. For example, I once had a case where my client was convicted of an aggravated felony. She had been here for many years, had a family with a special needs child, and it was obvious that the only reason for her conviction was the incompetence of her criminal lawyer (her crime was very minor). Although it was pretty clear that she did not qualify for withholding of removal, the IJ would have granted relief to resolve the situation. Unfortunately, the DHS attorney did not agree. Had the attorney agreed, the client would have received relief, even though she really did not qualify. Maybe something similar is happening in some of the asylum cases at issue here.

Asylum cases from Western democracies are relatively rare. But there are enough such cases to help prove the adage, no country is safe for everyone all the time.

Continue reading

32 Comments

One Hell of a Monday

by Jason Dzubow

Last Monday was a busy day for my family and me. Originally, I planned to attend an asylum hearing for a Burmese client in Virginia and to send another attorney (Ruth Dickey) to cover an Eritrean asylum case in Baltimore. At the same time, my wife and I were expecting our second child on Tuesday. Since our first born arrived late, and since the doctor seemed to think Number Two would follow a similar pattern, I hoped to complete both cases and then focus on the family.  Of course, nature takes its own course, and things did not work out as I planned.

When a new baby arrives, hijinks are sure to ensue.
When a new baby arrives, hijinks are sure to ensue.

Early Monday, my wife’s water broke, and we were off to the hospital. I figured the Eritrean client was in good hands, and I left a message at 2:00 AM for the court clerk in the Burmese case stating that I would not be able to attend the hearing that day. I figured the Immigration Judge would understand, and I already gave the client a letter to present to the IJ in case the baby arrived early.

Labor progressed through the morning, and at some point I learned that the Eritrean client received asylum. The DHS attorney was fairly satisfied with the case we presented, and only asked to hear about the client’s journey to the U.S. So after a short direct and cross, focusing basically on the client’s travel, DHS agreed to a grant (and so did the IJ). (Congratulations to Ruth on a job well done).

More surprising news came later. I managed to reach my Burmese client, and I told her that I would not make it to court after all. I assumed that we would receive a new court date, and I would try the case at that time. I must admit that I wasn’t thrilled with this option. Country conditions in Burma have been improving, which is great for Burma, but not so great for Burmese asylum cases. A delay might result in a weaker case. Also, delays can be very long, and this client had already been waiting for almost two years for her day in court. But clients, like new babies, have minds of their own. My client did not want to wait for another court date, and so (unbeknownst to me) she told the IJ that she wanted to proceed with her case without me. Like the Eritrean case, the Burmese case was fairly strong, and DHS was mostly convinced that asylum should be granted. So the DHS attorney cross examined the client about her case, and in the end, agreed to a grant.

I suppose the lesson is that most asylum cases are won or lost prior to court. If the DHS Trial Attorney is presented with a strong case and is convinced that the respondent qualifies for relief, odds are good that they will agree to a grant of asylum. And when DHS agrees, the IJ will almost certainly follow suit.

So, the final results for Monday: Two asylum grants and one new baby girl (who is hanging out with me as I type this). Not a bad day’s work, if I may say so myself (and yes, I suppose some credit goes to my wife for the baby and to Ruth for litigating the case in Baltimore).

Continue reading

4 Comments

Don’t, Until You Do!

by Jason Dzubow

DD is a former client who is now my intern. She was granted Withholding of Removal about a year ago. The Immigration Judge in her case denied asylum because DD had failed to file her application within one year of arriving in the U.S. For many reasons, Withholding is not as good as asylum–you never get a green card or become a U.S. citizen; you cannot travel outside the country; you need to renew your work permit every year; some aliens with Withholding are required to report again and again to DHS to be “monitored.” While my client was grateful that she was not deported, she was not (and is not) thrilled with the restrictions of Withholding of Removal. She wrote a poem about her impression of the asylum experience in the United States–

Don’t talk to me about immigration until you have walked a mile in my shoes on the long road in search of freedom in a foreign land, leaving everything behind to start from the beginning. 

Don’t declare to know what is best for immigrants (legal or illegal) until you have fought this web of a system.

Don’t tell me I stole your job, for you will never agree to clean toilets for $5.00 an hour in order to feed your family.  Besides, how can I steal the job you have hired me to do?  Are you not my employer, taking advantage of my desperate situation for your own gain?

Don’t tell me I am stealing your child’s right to good education; for knowledge can never be taken from an individual who has acquired it.

Don’t force me to learn English, because unlike you, English will be my 4th language. 

Don’t immigrant hate until you can prove your ancestors originated from this land like the Native Americans (Remember them?  The non-immigrants and the one true Americans).

If you ask me to go back to the land from whence I came, I will ask you to find your way first. 

If you tell me that this land is your land, I will ask you how did you acquire it… with blood or gold?

And finally, don’t tell me I broke the law, when instead it’s the law that has broken me.

Originally from Liberia, DD grew up on three continents in five different countries (Liberia, Egypt, Syria, Ghana, and the United States). She speaks English and is proficient in American Sign Language and French. In 2004, she obtained her BA Degree in Criminal Justice, French, and Psychology. She has worked in the field of mental health and career counseling since graduating from college.

Continue reading

5 Comments

Amerasian Homecoming Act – 25 Years Later

by Jason Dzubow

The Amerasian Homecoming Act, which passed into law in December 1987 and went into effect a few months later, began with a photojournalist, a homeless boy in Vietnam, and four high school students in Long Island, New York. Twenty five years later, almost 100,000 people have immigrated from Vietnam to the U.S. as a result of the AHA.

First, a bit of background. One of the great tragedies of the Vietnam War is the story of the Amerasians–children of U.S. servicemen and Vietnamese women. There are tens of thousands of such children. In Vietnam, they were known as “children of the dust” because they were considered as insignificant as specks of dust, and many (if not most) suffered discrimination, abuse, poverty, and homelessness. Although the fathers of these children were United States citizens, the children did not qualify to immigrate to the U.S. The situation was complicated by the absence of diplomatic relations between the government of the United States and the government of Vietnam. Ten years after the war, the situationo for the Amerasians seemed hopeless. A 2009 article from Smithsonian Magazine describes what happened next:

In October 1985, Newsday photographer Audrey Tiernan, age 30, on assignment in Ho Chi Minh City, felt a tug on her pant leg. “I thought it was a dog or a cat,” she recalled. “I looked down and there was [Le Van] Minh. It broke my heart.” Minh, with long lashes, hazel eyes, a few freckles and a handsome Caucasian face, moved like a crab on all four limbs, likely the result of polio. Minh’s mother had thrown him out of the house at the age of 10, and at the end of each day his friend, Thi, would carry the stricken boy on his back to an alleyway where they slept. On that day in 1985, Minh looked up at Tiernan with a hint of a wistful smile and held out a flower he had fashioned from the aluminum wrapper in a pack of cigarettes. The photograph Tiernan snapped of him was printed in newspapers around the world. The next year, four students from Huntington High School in Long Island saw the picture and decided to do something. They collected 27,000 signatures on a petition to bring Minh to the United States for medical attention.They asked Tiernan and their congressman, Robert Mrazek, for help.

Mrazek began making phone calls and writing letters. Several months later, in May 1987, he flew to Ho Chi Minh City. Mrazek had found a senior Vietnamese official who thought that helping Minh might lead to improved relations with the United States, and the congressman had persuaded a majority of his colleagues in the House of Representatives to press for help with Minh’s visa.

Minh came to the U.S., where he still lives. but once he got to Vietnam, the Congressman realized that many thousands of Amerasian children were living in Vietnam, often in terrible conditions. Congressman Mrazek resolved to help these children. The result was the Amerasian Homecoming Act, which went into effect in early 1988.

The AHA allowed Amerasians to come to the United States as lawful permanent residents. They are not considered refugees, but they do receive benefits (such as financial assistance and housing) normally reserved for refugees. In an important way, the law was quite succcesful–as a result of the AHA, approximately 25,000 Amerasians and about 70,000 of their family members immigrated to the United States.

However, the law was not a success by all measures. For one thing, not all Amerasians in Vietnam learned about the AHA, and so many people who might have qualified to leave Vietnam were unable to do so.

Another problem was fraud. One type of fraud involved people who claimed to be Amerasian, but who were not (there was no easy way to tell who was an Amerasian, and many decisions were made based on the person’s physical appearance). However, the more pervasive problem of fraud involved “fake families.” These were people who attached themselves to the Amerasian immigrants’ cases in order to come with them to the U.S. In many cases, the Amerasians agreed to this fraud because the fake families would pay the Amerasians’ expenses. Without this assistance, the Amerasians could not have afforded to immigrate. The extent of the fraud is unknown, but a November 1992 GAO report found that in 1991, about 20% of applicants were rejected for fraud. By 1992, 80% of applicants were rejected for fraud.

A final problem–though perhaps this is not a problem with the AHA itself–is that many Amerasians had a tough time adjusting to life in the United States. A 1991-92 survey of 170 Vietnamese Amerasians found that some 14 percent had attempted suicide; 76 percent wanted, at least occasionally, to return to Vietnam. As one advocate put it, “Amerasians had 30 years of trauma, and you can’t just turn that around in a short period of time.”

Of course, Amerasians did far better here than they could have in Vietnam, but given their difficult lives back home, the adjustment was often not easy. According to the Encyclopedia of Immigration:

In general, the Amerasians who came to the United States with their mothers did the best in assimilating to American society. Many faced great hardships, but most proved resilient and successful. However, only 3 percent of them managed to contact their American fathers after arriving in the United States. By 2009, about 50 percent of all the immigrants who arrived under the law had become U.S. citizens.

Now, Amerasians host black tie galas to celebrate their success as a unique immigrant community. And even in Vietnam, where they were vilified for many years, negative feelings towards Amerasians have faded.

Finally, on a personal note, my first job out of college was for a social service agency that did refugee resettlement, and so I worked with Amerasians (and others) for a few years in the early 1990s. Of the populations we served, it seemed to me that the Amerasians had been the most severely mistreated. Many were illiterate in Vietnamese and spoke no English. They were physically unhealthy, and they had a hard time adjusting. Twenty five years after the AHA, it seems that Amerasians are finally achieving a measure of success in the United States. Their long journey serves as a reminder that persecuted people need time to become self sufficient. But the Amerasians–like other refugee groups–are well on their way to fully integrating into American society.

Continue reading

34 Comments

The Seven Habits of Highly Annoying Immigration Judges

by Jason Dzubow

Well, I’ve dissed immigration lawyers, asylum-seeker clients, and the BIA, so I might as well offer my criticism of Immigration Judges. Of course, this comes with the usual disclaimer: None of the IJs that I appear before have any of these annoying habits. But I have heard speak of such problems from other lawyers (terrible, terrible people), so please blame them for this list. If you need names and addresses, email me offline. With the shifting-of-the-blame thing out of the way, here is the list:

7 – Changing Court Dates: I suspect that most immigration attorneys have a schedule best explained by Chaos Theory – Make a small change to the delicate balance in our calendars and things fall apart. Obviously, IJs sometimes need to postpone (or advance) hearings. The problem comes when hearing dates are changed without checking with the attorney first. This potentially creates scheduling conflicts for the lawyer, who must then file a motion to change the court date. This can be stressful and time consuming (and it might add to the client’s expenses). The better approach is for the clerk to contact the attorney prior to changing the court date. In my experience, when this happens (rarely), it is done by phone. Perhaps it would be easier for the clerk to contact the attorney using a new technology called email. This would be more efficient for all involved, as attorneys could avoid motions to re-schedule and IJs would not have to deal with such motions. 

Mocking litigants is generally considered an annoying habit (even if they deserve it).
Mocking litigants is generally considered an annoying habit (even if they deserve it).

6 – Double Booking: This issue is less of a problem these days, at least in my home courts. But there was a time when my Individual Hearings were commonly double booked. This meant that we prepared for the hearing, went to court, waited (sometimes for hours), and were then told to go home. Given client stress and attorney time wasted, I am glad that double bookings have become more rare.

5 – Denying Cases: OK, I really shouldn’t complain about this, as it is part of an IJ’s job. But it is kind of annoying.

4 – Failing to Rule on Motions: I understand that IJs are busy people. But if IJs could rule on motions in a timely manner, it might increase overall efficiency. Pleadings can be done by motion, thus reducing crowds at Master Calendar Hearings. Issues for trial can be narrowed, making trials less time consuming. Some cases can be resolved completely by motion. You get the idea. The problem, however, is that since IJs cannot be relied upon to rule on motions in advance of the hearing, it is not really worth the attorney’s time to write the motion (and then spend more time repeatedly calling the court to ask whether the motion has been granted). If IJs consistently responded to motions in a more timely way, lawyers would file more motions, and cases might be resolved in a more efficient manner.

3 – Stopping the Asylum Clock: As I have written previously, the rules governing the Asylum Clock are–to put it diplomatically–ridiculous. Different IJs interpret the rules differently. Some IJs interpret the rules restrictively and some even appear to make an effort to prevent the respondent from obtaining a work permit. Given the long waiting periods for these cases, aliens suffer great hardship when they do not receive a work permit. Unless the alien is engaged in egregious and purposeful delay, IJs should err on the side of keeping the Clock moving and of allowing asylum seekers to obtain their work permits.

2 – “Egalitarian” Master Calendar Hearings: Most IJs give priority to aliens who appear with an attorney at the Master Calendar Hearing. Of course, I am an attorney, and a somewhat impatient one at that, and so I do not like waiting around during a MCH. But there are more legitimate reasons for prioritizing represented respondents. First, respondents who are represented usually take less time during the MCH than unrepresented respondents. So more people will get done more quickly if represented aliens go first. Second, while most immigration lawyers do not charge by the hour, some do. Therefore, it is more expensive for some respondents to have their attorneys wait around for their turn at the MCH. Third, even those lawyers (like me) who do not charge by the hour might charge an extra fee for MCHs before IJs who are known to be slow (I have not done this, but I have considered it). If lawyers are more expensive, it is more difficult for aliens to retain us. Thus, when IJs do not have efficient MCHs, it potentially creates an access to justice issue for aliens.

1 – Showing the Proper Level of Respect: Notice, I did not say, “Showing Respect.” Sometimes IJs are not respectful enough to immigration lawyers; other times, they are too respectful to us lawyers. While I certainly believe that IJs should err on the side of being respectful to everyone in the courtroom, they do sometimes allow lawyers to get away with a bit too much. Oft times, alien respondents are not aware that their lawyers are unprepared or incompetent. When such behavior is egregious, IJs should point out the problem to the alien (and potentially to the bar association). Further, unprepared attorneys waste time at Master Calendar Hearings and cause delay for everyone else. There is no need for IJs to respect such behavior. On the other hand, some IJs run their courtrooms by bullying and demeaning attorneys (DHS attorneys and respondents’ attorneys). Obviously, this is inappropriate and, for the most part, ineffective. Good attorneys are sometimes unprepared, and sometimes make mistakes. It is harder for lawyers to do our best work when we face disrespectful comments at the slightest misstep. That said, while disrespectful IJ behavior can be a problem, it seems to me that such behavior is (fortunately) pretty rare.

Well, there you have it. While some IJs have bad habits (or so those nasty lawyers tell me), most IJs that I have encountered are hardworking, diligent, and fair. As we (hopefully) prepare for a major immigration reform, it is important to appreciate the positives about our immigration system and the legal protections we offer non-citizens. It is also important to appreciate the Judges and others who make that system work.

Continue reading

2 Comments

New Novel Explores the Lives of Asylum Seekers

by Jason Dzubow

They say that truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to be believable. That is basically the premise that got Scott Rempell thinking about the lives and stories of asylum seekers, and which led to his new novel, Five Grounds:

The idea to write an immigration novel that delves into the asylum process first hit me when I was working at the Office of Immigration Litigation in the Department of Justice. I was sitting in my office reviewing a Department of State report on a humanitarian crisis engulfing a particular country. I remember sitting back and thinking to myself that some of what I’m reading is stranger than fiction. It’s the type of information that people might read about in a novel and say, “no way that would happen!” But it does. It happens all the time in countries around the world and very few people know about it. I wanted to write a story that would educate readers about these countries, explain how the asylum process works, and highlight the tensions in the immigration debate.

Five Grounds is great reading material while waiting for your asylum interview.
Five Grounds is great reading material while waiting for your asylum interview.

The title refers to the five protected grounds that can form the basis for an asylum claim–race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. The novel follows three asylum seekers as they flee their home countries and make their way to the United States:

In Ethiopia, Tesfaye abandons his post at the Ministry of Defense and attempts to escape the country while a crazed rebel commander hunts him down for reasons he will spend years trying to fully understand. Lin’s mother forces her to leave China to protect her from the same fate that led to her father’s disappearance. In Mexico, Sofia’s health rapidly deteriorates, so she leaves behind her two young children and the memory of a murdered husband.

The three arrive in the United States where they must confront the American asylum system. A brief excerpt captures the flavor of the book:

Tesfaye placed a hand on each of his daughters’ cheeks. “I have some business to take care of, but I will come soon. I promise.”

Unconvinced, Yenee opened the door and grabbed hold of Tesfaye’s leg. “No, you need to come with us now, please come with us.” 

Tesfaye picked up Yenee and tried to comfort her. He could feel the tears on his shoulder, seeping through his shirt. “Look at me, Yenee.” Tesfaye gently pushed up on Yenee’s chin so that her eyes met his. “Look at me,” he repeated. “I have always tried to teach you the importance of responsibility. Our country has put its trust in me and I have a responsibility to help protect it.”

“But . . .”

“You remember the importance of honoring one’s obligations?”

“Yes, it’s just . . .”

“Now I need you to be strong.” Yenee loosened her arms, which had been clenched around Tesfaye. Her body slowly slid down until her feet touched the cobblestone walkway below. After she reluctantly got back into the car, Tesfaye stuck his head inside the open window and kissed Yenee on her forehead. He walked over to the front passenger seat, reached in the car, and gently rubbed his wife’s neck, massaging her earlobe with his thumb.

“We will see you soon,” Ayana sighed, forcing herself to smile.

Tesfaye smacked the roof of the car twice with his hand and Negasi shifted into gear. The Mercedes sped down the long dirt driveway toward the front gates, dust spewing into the air. Tesfaye stood at the edge of the driveway until the dust had again settled into the bone-dry ground.

I will see them soon. I just need some time to think.

Tesfaye could not have foreseen the consequences of his decision that morning, but the circumstances of his past were already conspiring. A chain of events set in motion nearly two decades ago was about to catch up to him. Soon, the conspiracy would reveal itself, and he would spend years desperately trying to unravel it.

The author was an attorney for OIL–the Office of Immigration Litigation, which defends BIA decisions in the U.S. federal courts. Now Mr. Rempell is a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston.

What has drawn me (and other attorneys) to the practice of asylum law is the stories of our clients: What they did in their home countries, how they survived, their journeys to the U.S., and their experience in the U.S. immigration system. Prof. Rempell writes, “my goal in writing Five Grounds is to educate and inform against the backdrop of a gripping, fast-paced story.” If you would like to learn more about Five Grounds–or buy the book, visit Prof. Rempell’s website, here.

Continue reading

There Is No Such Thing as a Tough Immigration Judge

by Jason Dzubow

A recent article in the Sun Sentinel (Broward County, Florida) got me thinking about what it means to be a “tough” Immigration Judge.

Judge Ford, pictured here at his Senior Prom.
Judge Ford, pictured here at his Senior Prom.

The article discusses Judge Rex. J. Ford, who will be celebrating (if that is the right word) 20 years on the bench this April. According to the Sun Sentinel, “In 96 percent of the 2,057 proceedings Ford completed in fiscal 2011, he ordered the person removed from the country.” Judge Ford told the paper: “I follow the book and I don’t get reversed.” The article also notes that Judge Ford is a registered Republican who “garnered attention in 2008 with the release of a U.S. Justice Department report that named him as playing a role in recommending the appointment of immigration judges based on their political leanings.” Judge Ford denied that he considered party affiliation in advocating for specific job candidates.

First, I suppose the Sun Sentinel mentions that Judge Ford is a Republican because Republicans are considered “tougher” on immigration than Democrats (this, despite the fact that President Obama has deported record numbers of illegal immigrants during each year of his Administration). I can’t help but think that this is an unfortunate stereotype–at least to some extent. Maybe I will write a post about that subject in the future, but for now, I will just note that Judge Ford was appointed during the Clinton Administration. In this post, I am more interested in how we decide which IJs are “tough.”

The most objective measure of an IJ’s “toughness” is his asylum denial rate, which can be found at TRAC Immigration, a website affiliated with Syracuse University. The toughest Judges are the ones with the highest denial rates. By this measure, Judge Ford is pretty tough. Of the 256 IJs examined by TRAC, only three deported people at a higher rate than Judge Ford. Does this mean that he is tough? Or does it mean that he doesn’t know what he is doing? Or something else?

Whenever a judge’s denial rate deviates significantly from the mean, it raises a red flag. In Judge Ford’s case, his denial rate of 93.3% is much higher than the national average of 53.2%. But I think it is more important to compare his denial rate with the local average. Why? Because local factors significantly impact denial rates. In Judge Ford’s case, the aliens he sees are all detained. Denial rates for detained asylum seekers are much higher than rates for non-detained aliens. In part because such aliens are less likely to be represented by attorneys and have a more difficult time gathering evidence, but mostly (I think) because such aliens often have no valid defense to removal, and so they tend to file weak (or frivolous) asylum claims as a last-ditch attempt to remain in the United States. Also, many detained aliens are ineligible for asylum due to criminal convictions or the one-year asylum bar. Comparing Judge Ford to his local colleagues, his denial rate does not seem particularly unusual. The denial rate for other IJs at Miami’s Krome Detention Facility (where Judge Ford is listed on the TRAC website) is 89.8%. So while Judge Ford is probably not an “easy” judge, if he were relocated to a different court, with a non-detained docket, I bet that he would grant a lot more cases.

Speaking more generally, where an IJ with a non-detained docket denies asylum cases at a significantly higher level than his local colleagues, I don’t see that as a sign of “toughness.” I see it as a failure to properly apply the law. The INA, the CFR, and various precedent decision from the BIA and the federal courts provide guidance to IJs about how to make decisions. They set forth how to determine if an alien is credible (consistent testimony and submission of reasonably available evidence). They define “persecution,” nexus, and the different protected grounds. In reaching a decision, an IJ is obliged to follow these laws; he is not permitted to “go with his gut.” In my experience, most IJs do their best to follow the law. Therefore, if one IJ stands out in terms of her denial rate (whether it is too high or too low), something is wrong.

In deciding an asylum case, it is not the IJ’s job to be tough or easy; it is her job to analyze the facts in the context of the law. Where an IJ’s denial rate differs significantly from the local average, it may be a sign that the IJ is not following the law. In such a case, the IJ’s supervisors should determine what is happening and whether additional training or some other corrective action is necessary.

Continue reading

17 Comments

Asylee Info Line Bites the Dust

by Jason Dzubow

Until recently, if you were granted asylum in the United States,  you could call the National Asylee Information and Referral Line, a toll-free number, where you could speak to someone about benefits potentially available to you (such as food stamps, Pell Grants, medical assistance, etc.). For people granted asylum through the Asylum Offices, the toll-free number was–and still is–listed on the approval notice.

However, as of December 28, 2012, the Info Line is kaput. But have no fear–asylees can still learn about benefits (assuming there are benefits after we fall off the fiscal cliff). Visit the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Benefits page on the internet.

A refugee tries to navigate the ORR website.
A refugee tries to navigate the ORR website.

Unfortunately, the ORR website is not so easy to use. Admittedly, I am fairly inept with a computer, and so many people might have an easier time with this than me. But it really does seem confusing.

For one thing, the site directs the user to a map of the U.S., where she can click on her state to find organizations that assist with benefits. The organizations that receive ORR grant money are listed, as are state coordinators and directors. The problem is, I cannot tell who to contact to ask questions about benefits. If there is an NGO or ORR employee who helps asylees learn about benefits, this should be made more explicit.

There is a helpful fact sheet available in English and eight other languages, which explains certain benefits, such as the Employment Authorization Document, the Refugee Travel Document, and how asylees can obtain their green cards. But this does not help with medical benefits, food stamps, English language programs, and the like.

I understand that we live in an era of budget cuts and looming fiscal apocalypse, and I guess that the Info Line was discontinued in order to save money. But I do not see why it should cost much money to make the ORR website simpler to use. In that way, asylees will more easily obtain the services they need, and more quickly become self sufficient. This benefits the asylees, of course, but it will also save money for the government.

I hope that the Office of Refugee Resettlement plans to make its website more user-friendly. Given that ORR provides grants to implementing agencies, perhaps it could also require the local agencies to follow an easy-to-use model website for providing localized information to asylees. A dedicated, accessible website will go a long way towards replacing the telephone Info Line and towards helping asylees begin to adjust to their new life in the United States.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Asylum Seekers ♥ Asylum Office

by Jason Dzubow

According to a new report released by USCIS, asylum applicants are “highly satisfied” with the service they receive at the nation’s various Asylum Offices.

Asylum seekers who appeared for interviews at the different Asylum Offices answered the written survey.  A total of 933 responses were collected from September 2011 through March 2012. Surveys were collected after the interview but before the final decision (for obvious reasons).

Asylum Officers celebrate the positive survey results.
Asylum Officers celebrate the positive survey results.

According to the survey, customers are highly satisfied with the services they receive from USCIS’s Asylum Offices; their overall satisfaction index is 87 on a scale of 0 to 100. For comparison, the federal government satisfaction index is currently 67. At the office-level, customers who were serviced by the Miami Asylum Office, Chicago Asylum Office, and the Houston Asylum Office were the most satisfied with indices of 93 or 94. Conversely, satisfaction was the lowest for those serviced by the New York Asylum Office with a satisfaction index of 70.

Overall, 17% of respondents felt that the Asylum Officer was either argumentative or biased; at the New York office, 29% of respondents felt the officers were argumentative or biased.  In LA, the next highest, the number was 23%.

With overall satisfaction at 87, the report opines that it may be difficult for USCIS to significantly improve its asylum office customer satisfaction scores at an aggregate level. However, the report notes, at certain locations there appears to be opportunity for improvement. Most significantly, in New York and Los Angeles, Asylum Officers should try to provide more information to applicants about the process. They should also try to appear less argumentative during interviews. According to the report, offices in Los Angeles, Newark, New York, and San Francisco should address wait times for the start of the interview.

The survey also contained a comments section. Most comments are very positive.  A typical comment reads, “Everything was good.”  Some of the more interesting comments include:

Cannot think of anything right now to improve the service, how do you improve on perfection?
 
Smile more.
 
No need to improve anything unless you decide to improve something.
 
My service overall was good with exception of the officer which directed my interview in a coercive and threatening manner.
 
Provide free coffee and donuts [I fully endorse this idea!].
 
The survey results (if not all the written comments) comport with my view of the Asylum Office. I find the officers to be very professional and courteous. They don’t always grant my cases (the nerve!), but in the large majority of cases, I find that they are fair and reasonable. Congratulations to the Asylum Officers on the survey results and on a job well done.

Continue reading

6 Comments

Lawyers Gone Wild

by Jason Dzubow

The New York Times reports a major bust involving lawyers, paralegals, and even a church official who were allegedly helping Chinese nationals file fraudulent asylum cases.

The Times reports that 26 people, including six attorneys, were arrested in Chinatown and Flushing, Queens. They are accused of an elaborate scheme to help Chinese immigrants invent stories about persecution and dupe immigration officials into granting asylum. Some false stories describe persecution based on China’s one-child policy, including forced abortion. Others set forth claims based on religious persecution. Apparently, the asylum seekers aroused suspicion when Asylum Officers noticed that many of the stories were very similar.

Some people probably should not be allowed to practice law.
Some people probably should not be allowed to practice law.

In all, the conspiracy involves 10 law firms and as many as 1,900 asylum seekers. The conspiracy also allegedly involved at least one church official, Liying (pronounced “Lying”?) Lin. According to the Times, Ms. Lin, 29, trained asylum seekers in the basic tenets of Christianity. According to the indictment against her, Ms. Lin also helped her “clients” trick the immigration authorities and “trained asylum applicants on what questions about religious belief would be asked during an asylum interview and coached the clients on how to answer.”

This is not the first time that I’ve written about Lawyers and paralegals helping to create false cases, but it is the largest such bust that I’ve heard about.  One question is, how pervasive is this type of fraud? 

A professor of Asian-American studies and urban affairs at Hunter College in New York, Peter Kwong, told the Times that he believes most Chinese asylum cases in New York City were fraudulent. “This is an industry,” said Prof. Kwong, who has written widely on Chinese immigration. “Everybody knows about it, and these violations go on all the time.” While I would not be surprised if Prof. Kwong is correct, I would also not be surprised if he is over-estimating the number of fraudulent asylum claims. 

The reason for the difficulty is that there is no data on false asylum claims. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence about false claims, but this is really not reliable. For one thing, some people with real asylum claims are duped by unscrupulous lawyers and paralegals into making false applications. For instance, I was recently consulted in a case where a Russian paralegal and attorney created a false claim for the asylum seeker even though he had a perfectly legitimate reason for seeking asylum. I suspect they created the false case because that was easier than preparing the actual case. So while the man’s case was false, he had a real claim for asylum (he lost his case and spent many thousands of dollars in the process).

Another reason why I don’t trust the anecdotal evidence on fraud is because cases are sometimes fraudulent in non-material ways. What I mean is, sometimes people lie about things that do not affect their cases. For example, I worked on a case where the applicant did not mention her husband on her I-589 form (which she completed and filed before she had a lawyer). She felt that she did not need to list him, as they were separated. The DHS attorney brought this up when he argued that the applicant was not credible, so it might have impacted the case (in the end, the IJ found her credible). The marriage did not relate to the primary basis for the application, and it was based on my client’s misunderstanding of the form. So, should this be considered a “fraudulent” case?  I suppose it depends who you ask. The point being: When it is difficult to define fraud, it is difficult to characterize asylum cases as either fraudulent or non-fraudulent.

Although it is difficult to know the magnitude of the problem, it’s pretty clear that many asylum cases are fraudulent. The situation in New York is only the most recent illustration of the problem. So what’s the solution? I strongly believe that the government can do more to stop these fraudsters. I have seen enough of their work to know that they are not so smart and often not very careful (witness the Chinese case in NY where Asylum Officers detected the fraud when they noticed that many of the applications were suspiciously similar–in other words, the lawyers were too lazy and too cocky to bother making up unique stories for each asylum seeker).

Since many of these fake cases seem to originate with a (hopefully) small number of lawyers, paralegals, and translators, I believe the most effective solution is to investigate such people. DHS could send undercover “clients” to suspect attorneys to determine whether the attorneys are helping to concoct false cases. The “clients” could also visit paralegals and translators, who often work independent of attorneys, to see whether they are practicing law without a license. People who help create false cases should be prosecuted and jailed.  Lawyers who engage in such behavior should be disbarred.  

If DHS can bring more cases like the one in New York, it will help deter the paid “professionals” who create false asylum claims. It will also help preserve the integrity of the asylum system for those who need it. 

Continue reading

9 Comments

When Bar Counsel Comes Calling

by Jason Dzubow

Every attorney who regularly represents immigrants and asylum seekers is familiar with Matter of Lozada.  In short, Lozada states that to reopen an immigration case where the previous attorney was constitutionally ineffective, the alien must file a bar complaint against that attorney.  Despite some intervening decisions, Lozada is still the controlling law.  As a result, many immigration lawyers will face a bar complaint at some point in their career.

It starts with Lozada, and ends like this.

In that happy spirit, I am re-posting an excellent article by Dolores Dorsainvil, a Senior Staff Attorney with the D.C. Office of Bar Counsel (the article is written with the DC Rules of Professional Conduct in mind, but it really applies to all jurisdictions). Ms. Dorsainvil investigates and, where necessary, prosecutes allegations of ethical misconduct of District of Columbia attorneys.  She is also an adjunct professor at the American University’s Washington College of Law where she teaches Legal Ethics.  She has an ethics blog, The Gavel, which can be found here.  Without further ado, here is her article, 7 Tips for Dealing with Bar Counsel Complaints:

For many attorneys, coming across an envelope with the return address marked “Office of Bar Counsel” undoubtedly brings a sinking feeling. After reading the Bar complaint, an attorney’s initial reaction may be one of many: anxiety, incredulousness, fear, or even anger. Some attorneys may even view the correspondence from Bar Counsel as a personal attack on their credibility and professionalism. Whatever the feeling, and however the complaint arose, with hundreds of Bar Counsel complaints lodged every year, attorneys should appreciate and understand not only the serious nature of attorney discipline investigations, but that the process can be managed.

Here are seven simple tips to guide attorneys in responding to a Bar Counsel inquiry should one ever become subject to such a complaint:

1. Think. Before penning an emotional response to Bar Counsel, take time to think about the legal matter, the history of the case, and the client who filed the complaint. This will aid an attorney in focusing on the issues involved in the complaint and may give him or her time to provide a response based on facts rather than emotions. An attorney may even want to review the file in its entirety to make sure he or she is able to recall every detail about the underlying legal matter.

2. Be timely. Request an extension, if needed. In its cover letter accompanying the complaint, Bar Counsel provides a date by which an attorney is required to respond. If for some reason an attorney is not able to submit a timely response, he or she may wish to request an extension. Our office usually will grant an initial reasonable request for an extension. The attorney should confirm such a courtesy in writing. If a circumstance exists that requires a lengthy response period—as we all know, illnesses, deaths, vacations, business or personal matters happen—it is prudent for an attorney to explain that in writing to Bar Counsel and provide corroborating documents explaining the lengthy extension request.

3. Respond. This may seem like an obvious step, but there are attorneys who, even when they have not committed misconduct, stick their head in the sand in an effort to avoid dealing with the allegations made in a complaint. The important fact to note is that failing to respond to a lawful inquiry from Bar Counsel is a violation of Rule 8.1(b). So, even if Bar Counsel is not able to make any findings of a violation of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct in the initial complaint, our office may pursue and prosecute an attorney for violating Rule 8.1(b). No matter how distasteful the prospect is of being subject to a complaint, every attorney has an affirmative duty under the rules to respond to requests for information from Bar Counsel authorities.

4. Answer the allegations honestly and concisely. An attorney should provide a comprehensive and fair explanation of the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegations made in the complaint. Providing a full picture or history of the representation will assist Bar Counsel in rendering a disposition; however, an attorney should be judicious. Providing a 30–page response while failing to actually address the allegations of misconduct may raise concerns.

5. Provide documents, and then some. An attorney should provide the documents our office requests, but he or she also should provide relevant documents as exhibits to the response if those documents corroborate an attorney’s version of events. For example, supplying Bar Counsel with a copy of a key pleading of an issue that already has been addressed by a tribunal is extremely helpful. Taking this proactive step saves time in the investigation process.

6. Be diligent and comprehensive. An attorney should take the time to explain relevant areas of law as they relate to the underlying legal matter. It is important for an attorney not to assume that Bar Counsel is familiar with every practice area. Providing Bar Counsel with a copy of the applicable rule or statute that the attorney has relied upon in the underlying matter is invaluable and can assist our office in determining the validity of the complaint.

7. Hire counsel, if necessary. This is a determination that can only be made by an attorney, but there are benefits to hiring representation. Respondent’s counsels usually are more familiar with the attorney disciplinary process and can help to navigate the system.

Overall, an attorney’s cooperation with a Bar Counsel investigation will contribute to a resolution in a manner that safeguards the rights of the public and protects attorneys from unfounded complaints.

Continue reading

American Software Mogul Denied Asylum in Guatemala

by Jason Dzubow

If you’re reading this on a PC, there’s a good chance that your anti-virus protection is based on a program designed by John McAfee.  Mr. McAfee, 67, was a pioneer of anti-virus software, and the company that bears his name is today one of the largest anti-virus companies in the world.  At one time, his net worth exceeded $100 million, but his fortune dwindled and in 2008, he moved from the U.S. to Belize.

There, Mr. McAfee apparently led an increasingly extreme lifestyle, which included drugs, prostitutes, and feuds with his neighbors.

An American seeking asylum in Guatemala is kind of like a child giving presents to Santa Claus.

It’s seems Mr. McAfee also had an uneasy relationship with the authorities in his new country.  In April of this year, the Belize Gang Suppression Unit raided his house looking for a Meth lab.  Mr. McAfee was briefly detained and then released.

His current odyssey began on November 12, 2012 when police started searching for him as a “person of interest” in connection to the murder of his neighbor in Belize, another expatriate American, who was shot to death.

Mr. McAfee fled to Guatemala and–like any respectable computer guy–started a blog to chronicle his ordeal.

After almost a month on the lam, the Guatemalan authorities apprehended Mr. McAfee for entering the country illegally, and prepared to deport him to Belize.  Mr. McAfee promptly requested asylum.  Just as promptly it seems, the Guatemalan authorities denied his request.  According to the Washington Post:

McAfee’s legal team said they were preparing to appeal the denial of asylum to the country’s constitutional court, a process that could give McAfee perhaps another day or two in Guatemala.  The court would have to issue a decision within 48 hours.

For his part, Mr. McAfee appealed for his blog readers to please “email the President of Guatemala and beg him to allow the court system to proceed, to determine my status in Guatemala, and please support the political asylum that I am asking for.”  He adds, “Please PLEASE be very POLITE in your communications, and I thank you.”  (Mr. McAfee is blogging from jail in Guatemala, which he called a “groundbreaking activity”).

As of this writing, Mr. McAfee’s asylum case is still on appeal.  But it seems to me that under the international law definition of asylum, Mr. McAfee simply does not qualify.  First, to receive asylum, a person must demonstrate that he has a well founded fear of persecution (as opposed to prosecution).  “Persecution” is (usually) some type of severe physical harm. There is no indication that Mr. McAfee will be prosecuted in Belize, let alone persecuted. He is currently a person of interest in a criminal investigation. This is a far cry from being detained and/or physically harmed.

Possibly, the murder investigation is a pretext for persecuting Mr. McAfee.  Indeed, he claims that there is a “political vendetta” against him because he did not “donate enough money to the government.”  Even if this is the case, he must show that the persecution is “on account of” his race, religion, nationality, particular social group or political opinion.  Unless there is more to the story, failure to “donate” money to the government would not fall into one of these protected categories.

Finally, even if Mr. McAfee faces persecution in Belize on account of a protected ground, he is still not eligible for asylum.  The reason is that he is a citizen of the United States.  Asylum is available to people who face persecution from their home country; not from a third country. To avoid persecution, Mr. McAfee could (theoretically at least) receive protection from the U.S. government. In his blog, Mr. McAfee states that he asked the United States Embassy for help, but they told him that there was nothing they could do.

While I think that Mr. McAfee cannot qualify for asylum, I certainly believe that the government of Guatemala should not return him to Belize if there is reason to believe that he will be persecuted or tortured in that country. The UN Convention Against Torture (which Guatemala ratified) would prevent Mr. McAfee from being sent to Belize if he would be tortured there.

While his claims seem far-fetched (the president of Belize called them “bonkers“), Mr. McAfee, like everyone else who fears harm if he is deported, should not be removed without due process of law.  Obviously, asylum law and the UN Convention Against Torture cannot be used to subvert the criminal law.  But if someone fears harm in a country, he should not be sent to that country until his claim is reviewed on the merits.  In this case, before he is sent anywhere, Guatemala and the United States (through its embassy) should ensure that Mr. McAfee does not face persecution or torture if he is returned to Belize.

Continue reading

The Seven Habits of Highly Annoying Clients

by Jason Dzubow

I’ve spent some time in this blog dissing immigration lawyers, so I thought it only fair to discuss some of things that immigration lawyers don’t like about their asylum-seeker clients.  Of course, none of these bad habits applies to any of my clients (so please don’t fire me).  With that important caveat, here are the seven habits of highly annoying clients:

7 – Negotiate the Price: Yes, I understand that many people come from countries where it is standard procedure to negotiate the price of something you buy.  But we are not now in that place.  In the U.S., negotiating the price is not the norm, and we lawyers really don’t like doing it.  Most of us charge a very fair price, and some of us charge too little (I sometimes hear complaints about this from my wife and kid, who keep bugging me to buy them things like food and clothing – the nerve).  While lawyers who specialize in asylum don’t expect to get rich, we don’t want to feel that we are being taken advantage of either.  It’s difficult to do your best work when your client is not fairly compensating you for your time.  On this point, lawyers also don’t like it when clients fail to pay or pay late.  To do an asylum case correctly requires a lot of time and hard work.  When a client pays too little or doesn’t pay at all, it becomes much more difficult to make the effort to help the client.    

Some former Immigration Attorneys reminisce about their clients.

6 – Change Phone Numbers Without Telling the Lawyer: It’s understandable that clients who are new and relatively unsettled in the U.S. would move and would change their phone numbers.  What’s frustrating is when they change their contact information but don’t tell their lawyer.  I always ask my clients for an “emergency contact;” not so much for emergencies (We need to file your form I-730 – Stat!), but to have someone else to contact if my client disappears.  Remember – if your lawyer can’t find you, she can’t help you with your case.

5 – Failure to Cooperate: I tend to give my clients a lot of homework.  I want them to get their work and school records, police reports, letters from friends and family, etc., etc.  Most clients do their best to get these documents, as they understand that it will greatly help their cases.  But some clients just can’t be bothered.  Not only does this make it more difficult to win the case, it makes it more difficult to represent the client with any enthusiasm–if you don’t care about your case, why should your attorney?

4 – Bringing Documents Late: I suppose this is a sub-category of “Failure to Cooperate,” but it deserves its own mention.  Immigration Courts and the Asylum Offices have deadlines for submitting documents.  If you give a document to your lawyer at the last minute, he may not have time to properly review that document–to ensure that it is consistent with the rest of your case, for example–before submitting it.  Submitting an inconsistent document could jeopardize your case.  Also, for a lawyer to organize and submit documents in a professional manner takes time.  If we receive documents late, it is more difficult for us to do our jobs.  Ultimately, of course, this is bad for the client.

3 – “No Shows” and “Dropping By:” You should be able to contact your lawyer when you need him.  But you do not have a right to stop by any time you want without an appointment.  Lawyers have busy schedules and multiple deadlines.  The more we can organize our days, the better.  When a client shows up without an appointment, it interrupts our schedules and potentially disrupts our day.  If you want to see your lawyer, please call in advance and make an appointment.  The flip side of this is when clients make an appointment and then don’t show up without calling.  It’s common courtesy to call if you can’t attend an appointment, and it makes sense to treat your attorney–the person who is working on a case that might profoundly affect your life–with respect.  

2 – Late to Court or Late to an Interview: Even worse than missing appointments with your lawyer is missing your appointment with the Immigration Judge or the Asylum Officer.  This will potentially cause you to lose your case and be deported.  It is also a problem for the lawyer, who often has to cover for you or appear at a second hearing (if you are lucky enough to be rescheduled and not simply denied).  

1 – Don’t Keep Asking, “Is My Case Done Yet:” Once an asylum case is filed, lawyers can only do so much to make it go faster – and by “so much,” I mean basically nothing.  Bugging your lawyer about whether there is a decision yet in your case is like asking him whether the Messiah is coming soon: We can pray for it, but that’s about all.  So please be patient.  If lawyers could issue green cards, we would work a lot less and make a lot more.  

And there you have it.  If you are a person seeking asylum and you have a lawyer, try to avoid these bad habits.  Remember – a happy lawyer will do better work, and you will have a better chance to win your case.  And, to all those clients who don’t have any bad habits, from all us lawyers – Thank you!  

Continue reading

5 Comments