Refugees Have a Harder Time Attaining Self Sufficiency

by Jason Dzubow

Officials from the State Department, USCIS, the Department of Health and Human Services, and others have begun the process of recommending the refugee numbers–i.e., the number of refugees our country will accept–for Fiscal Year 2011.  The annual ceiling has been 80,000 refugees per year for the last three years, though we have never actually reached the ceiling: In FY 2008, we admitted 60,191 refugees and in FY 2009, we admitted 74,654 refugees.  Officials expect to admit about 73,000 refugees in FY 2010.

Because of the troubled economy, those refugees who are resettled in the United States are having a more difficult time achieving self sufficiency.  Government Executive reports:

Every refugee arriving in the country is provided with a sponsor affiliated with one of 10 national volunteer agencies that work to help refugees adjust to life in the United States. They provide a litany of services, including help finding work, enrolling children in schools and adults in English language classes, and finding medical care.  Refugees are eligible for public assistance and medical care for at least eight months, and sometimes longer, depending on family status and the state they live in.  They also receive about $1,100 in direct financial assistance after they arrive in the country.

Under a new government employment program, all refugees entering the U.S. will receive a free t-shirt.

The agencies are finding it more difficult to place refugees in jobs.  The State Department even claims to be informing refugees overseas about the difficult economy in the U.S., so they can make an informed decision about whether to resettle here or in another country.

Before I went to law school, I worked as a job developer at an agency that helped resettle refugees in Philadelphia.  I would travel around the city visiting employers, looking for job openings for my clients.  The jobs were often less than exciting.  I remember one man who worked as a parking lot attendant.  He had been the Minister of Finance for the Ethiopian army.  Another man had designed complex radar systems in the Soviet Union.  In America, he worked in a machine shop.  Such people have fled their countries to save their lives and their families’ lives.  The transition to a new culture often sets them back in ways that can never be overcome.  The plight of such refugees is not easy.  I am proud that my country accepts them and tries to help them live better lives.

Continue reading

Remembering the Golden Venture

by Jason Dzubow

It’s been 17 years since the Golden Venture ran aground off New York.  The Epoch Times remembers that fateful day in an interview with a Chinese fisherman who survived the ordeal, gained political asylum, and built a life for himself and his family in the United States:

“Jump! Jump! Hurry Up! Jump into the sea! You are in America. Or they will send you back to China,” a man shouted hastily. Hundreds of Chinese men and women jumped from a rusty freighter into the cold water, swimming, struggling, crying, and gasping.

Liu Ping

Ten people died as they struggled to swim to shore. After getting so close to the American dream, chased so painstakingly, they hit America’s shoreline at the end of their lives.

“The water was freezing and my body was weak. I didn’t know whether I could make it. I thought I was dying. I asked ‘God help me’,” recalled Liu Ping, 44, one of the survivors of 298 passengers on the Golden Venture that ran aground off New York at 2:00 a.m. on June 6, 1993.

Liu was one of the lucky survivors, and he was among the dozens who were granted asylum. Of the 298 people, 110 were deported to China, 53 were detained until 1997 when they were pardoned under a bill signed by President Clinton.

Now a permanent resident, Liu leads a peaceful and content life in Philadelphia with his wife and three children. Two of his children are U.S. born citizens. His other child was born in China and later became a naturalized American citizen. His wife, whom he married before coming to the U.S., also became a naturalized U.S. citizen.

A Survivor’s Story

He’ll never forgets how he made it – the Golden Venture experience.

Speaking with a thick Fujianese accent, Liu was emotional when recalling his 26-month journey from China to America. It was over land, mountains, across rivers, through a jungle, and finally over the ocean, using all possible method of travel imaginable.

The first words that he uttered on U.S. soil were “Thank you” to an American police officer.

(more…)

Continue reading

3 Comments

Briefing in Advance of World Refugee Day

by Jason Dzubow

The Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration of the Department of State and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) of the Department of Homeland Security co-hosted a background press briefing on June 3, 2010 on U.S. refugee and asylum-seeker resettlement programs. The discussion was held in advance of World Refugee Day, June 20, 2010.

The speakers gave basic background information on refugee and asylum issues and answered journalists’ questions (for purposes of this briefing, your humble blogger was considered a journalist).  The speakers explained that refugees were people outside the United States who had suffered past persecution or who had a well-founded fear of future persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or particular social group.  Asylum seekers are people who are in the United States (or at the border) who claim that they are refugees.  A few points that I thought were interesting:

Most refugees come to the U.S. from Iraq, Bhutan (via Nepal), and Burma (via Thailand and Malaysia).  The top three countries that accept refugees are the United States, Canada, and Australia.  The number of refugees resettled in the U.S. has increased 25% from last fiscal year.

For cases heard at the eight Asylum Offices in the U.S., a supervisor reviews every case.  Certain sensitive cases are reviewed by headquarters.  Asylum Officers receive an initial six weeks of training and then four hours of training each week.  Officers are trained to identify fraudulent documents. 

USCIS is working on a system to share biometric data with other countries; Canada in particular.  Presumably, the purpose of this is to determine whether the asylum applicant previously filed for asylum in another country and was rejected.

Violence along the Mexican border has caused some Mexicans to seek asylum at the border (though over the past few years, the number of Mexican asylum seekers has been dropping).  In the first six months of FY 2010, 233 Mexican nationals expressed a fear of persecution at the border.  Of those, 84 were deemed to have a “credible fear” and were referred to an Immigration Judge for an asylum hearing.  We can assume that the other 149 people were found not to have a credible fear of persecution and were removed under the expedited removal rules.

If you are wondering, I asked about a problem I have heard about from a number of clients and clients’ family members.  When an alien expresses a fear of return to her country, the ICE or CBP officer is supposed to refer the person for a credible fear interview with a USCIS Asylum Officer.  Apparently in some cases where a detained alien, or an alien at the border, expresses a fear of persecution, the ICE officer tries to convince the alien to sign papers agreeing to removal, and to not make a claim for asylum.  I have heard about this from different sources, though many of the people involved are expressing a fear of persecution by criminal gangs in Central America.  The USCIS spokesperson was not aware of the problem and indicated that ICE and CBP officers are supposed to refer such cases for credible fear interviews.

Continue reading

Fraud and Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

A recent report from Ireland found that almost two thirds of asylum seekers who claimed to be from Somalia were lying.  The investigation found that the “Somalis” were from other countries, such as Tanzania, Kenya, and Yemen.  Apparently, some of the asylum seekers were found out based on language or a lack thereof; others had previously applied for visas to the UK using different nationalities.  There may be some reason to doubt whether these techniques for outing “Somalis” are valid.  For example, some Somali nationals may have been refugees for many years, raised in other countries without knowledge of Somali languages.  Others may have used false passports from other countries to travel to Europe.  Nevertheless, the high percentage of cases that are likely fraudulent presents a problem for the “system” and for those who represent asylum seekers. 

Of course, the problem is not confined to Europe.  In 2007, the U.S. Embassy in Ethiopia issued a cable (I have not been able to find it online) entitled: Report on fraud trends in Ethiopian asylee claims: A guide for DHS adjudicators.  The cable talks about “following to join” cases where an alien has been granted asylum in the United States and has filed a form I-730 for his relatives to join him in the U.S.  From August 2005 to May 2006, the Embassy reviewed 1,449 following-to-join cases, which represented 288 asylum grants in the United States.  The Embassy writes that “Almost every [following-to-join] interview at Post uncovers information that calls into question the petitioner’s original claim.”  In addition, the Embassy has found that “more than 75 percent of documents investigated were fraudulent” and consular officers “suspect that the fraud rate is well over 50 percent.”  Again, there may be problems with the Embassy’s methods of investigating fraud, but the cable certainly presents evidence of a problem. 

The U.S. Embassy in Cameroon has issued a cable similar to the Ethiopian cable.  It states that asylum claims have increased dramatically since 1992.  The Embassy knows of no corresponding increase in political problems, though the economy has gotten worse, leading to the conclusion that many asylum seekers are economic migrants (the State Department Report on Human Rights conflicts somewhat with this view, listing human rights abuses such as torture, arbitrary arrest, and life-threatening prison conditions).  The Embassy also reports that Cameroonians have been detained entering the United States with all sorts of fake documents that could be used to create fraudulent asylum claims.  Relatives following to join frequently know nothing about the asylees’ political activities or persecution.  As a result of this fraud, non-immigrant visa refusal rates have increased from 35% in 2001 to 60% in 2004.  Further, the Embassy complains that fraudulent applications and following-to-join applications have dramatically increased its workload.  It recommends that Cameroonian asylum cases be viewed skeptically. 

Other evidence is more anecdotal.  A recent report from the blogosphere–I cannot vouch for the report’s credibility–indicates that an Ethiopian diplomat at the Embassy in Washington, DC quit his job, claimed asylum, and then returned to work at the Embassy as a public relations officer.  He was even listed on the Embassy website.  The report states that the diplomat’s asylum claim was false, and urged the U.S. government and the Ethiopian government to investigate.  

The problem of fraud presents a dilemma for attorneys who specialize in asylum and a challenge to the “system.” 

Attorneys who specialize in asylum have generally entered the field to assist those who genuinely fear persecution (we certainly don’t specialize in asylum for the money!), not to help facilitate fraud.  However, for the most part, we can’t know which cases are genuine and which are not, and it’s sometimes dangerous to judge.  I remember one Ethiopian woman whose case I doubted.  We won, and a few months later she returned to my office and asked whether I could help her find a doctor.  Ever since her detention and beating, she said, she had been suffering pain on one side of her body.  Although I don’t know whether this was true or not, she had no reason to lie.  Experiences like this make me cautious about judging my client’s veracity.  Instead, it’s better to represent my clients to the best of my ability and to let the Immigration Judge decide the case.

The problem of fraud also presents a challenge to the legal system.  Our country has–I think quite properly–taken a generous approach to asylum.  We would rather allow some fraudulent cases to succeed than turn away genuine asylum seekers.  Of course, if fraud becomes too pervasive, it might cause us to re-consider how we evaluate asylum claims.  The Australia government recently initiated a six-month freeze on processing asylum applications filed by Afghani and Sri Lankan asylum seekers who arrive by sea.  The system was becoming overwhelmed by applicants, and the government reacted with a heavy hand.  Such a broad brush approach is questionable under international law, and would obviously affect legitimate and illegitimate asylum seekers. 

So what can be done to reduce fraudulent asylum claims?

The U.S. Embassy in Cameroon suggests that DHS check asylum applications with records obtained at the Embassy to determine whether family members listed on the asylum form were also mentioned at the Embassy.  This would avoid the problem of asylum seekers “adding” family members in order to bring them to the U.S. after they win asylum.  If “false family members” could not follow to join, the incentive for seeking asylum might be reduced. 

Also, more generally, documented information at the Embassy could be compared with information in the asylum application.  Theoretically, this should happen already, but DHS has limited resources, and this method seems to have limited value, as most biographical information is consistent between the Embassy and the asylum application.

In many cases, friends and relatives in the home country submit letters in support of an applicant’s claim.  Such people could be called to the Embassy for questioning.  It is more difficult to create a fraudulent case if people in the home country are required to testify about the claimed persecution.  Of course, this would have to be done while maintaining confidentiality, but this should be possible given that such people already know about the asylum claim (having written letters in support of the claim).

Another option is to identify attorneys and notarios who prepare claims deemed suspicious.  Such people should be investigated and, if evidence of fraud is uncovered, prosecuted.  This, to me, is the easiest and most effective solution.  The DHS attorneys generally know who is producing and/or facilitating fraudulent claims.  Why not send an undercover investigator posing as a client to the suspected attorney?  If the attorney suggests that the “client” engage in fraud, the attorney could be charged with a crime (that is exactly what happened to a Washington State couple who helped create fraudulent asylum cases).  Such tactics would reduce fraud by eliminating the purveyors of fraud and by deterring others who might engage in such practices.

The trick is to reduce fraud without preventing legitimate asylum seekers from gaining protection.

Continue reading

7 Comments

Advice from a Court Interpreter

by Jason Dzubow

Without interpreters, the Immigration Court system could not operate.  One of the best interpreters I’ve worked with is Maria Raquel McFadden.  She is a freelance business, legal, and immigration interpreter with 10 years experience.  She has interpreted in various forums, including courts, immigration interviews, depositions, and business meetings.  She is registered with the State of Maryland and can be reached at: (202) 709-3602 (office) or (202) 360-2736 (cell).  Her email address is mcfadden.maria@gmail.com.  Ms. McFadden offers some advice on how best to utilize an interpreter:

Nicole Kidman makes interpreting cool

Many people who are scheduled for interviews before the asylum office or immigration court speak little or no English. Often they have never used the services of an interpreter before.

Being aware of the function of an interpreter can help the process go along more smoothly. The interpreter’s role is to remove the language barrier to the extent possible, so that the access to justice for a person with non- or limited English skills is the same as that of similarly situated English speakers for whom no such barrier exists.

When speaking through an interpreter, people should continue to speak directly to each other.  The interpreter serves merely as a mouthpiece. Interviews and conversations should flow as if the interviewer/judge, lawyer(s), and the asylum applicant are the only ones participating. Experienced interpreters know to use only the third person when referring to themselves.

In court, it is the job of the interpreter to interpret the questions asked into the alien’s language and interpret the answers into English.  At an interview, the interpreter will likewise interpret all questions and answers given.

Some interpreters are better than others and it’s necessary that both lawyers and clients learn how to best use an interpreter. Here are some tips to keep in mind:

1. Before the interview, the asylum seeker and interpreter should talk to each other to make certain that they speak the same dialect and/or understand each other.

2. Try to speak in short, very clear sentences. This will help because it can be difficult for an interpreter to accurately interpret more than a couple of sentences at a time.  

3. Look at and speak directly to the person to whom you are responding. Do not address the interpreter.

4. If you do not understand the interpreter, notify the judge/interviewing officer immediately.

5. Remember that the interpreter must keep all the information he/she learns during the interview/hearing confidential and may not share it with anyone. 

One should bear in mind that when an asylum-applicant goes before a judge, it is the court that will be make an interpreter available. However, asylum applicants must provide their own interpreter when interviewing before USCIS or the Asylum Office.  When hiring one’s own interpreter, one should take into account that a person related to the asylum-seeker may not interpret for them. It is better to have a neutral/disinterested party. The interpreter must take his/her government issued ID and be prepared to stay the entire duration of the interview. Sometimes, appointments are delayed and all parties should be prepared for long waits. 

By taking all the above factors into consideration, the asylum interview/hearing can be more manageable when working with an interpreter.

Continue reading

3 Comments

Two Unpublished BIA Victories for Mentally Ill Respondents

by Jason Dzubow

Here are two recent decisions from the BIA involving mentally ill defendants who faced persecution in their homelands:

(1) Professor Muneer Ahmad of the Yale Law School Worker & Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic reports that the BIA has reversed a decision by the IJ denying Convention Against Torture relief to a mentally ill Haitian man.  The Haitian man argued that he would be jailed in Haiti and that he would not receive his medication.  Without medication, the man would not be able to comply or adapt to the conditions in prison.  As a result of this non-compliance, he would be beaten and tortured in prison.  The BIA found that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured.  The Board’s decision reversed the IJ and remanded the case for a grant of CAT relief.  The student attorneys on the case were Alice Hwang, Dale Kotchka-Alanes, Rebecca Scholtz, and Matt Vogel.

(2) Attorney Bob Jobe represented the respondent in another unpublished BIA decision.  In that case, the Board originally denied the claim, but the Ninth Circuit remanded to assess whether “Peruvians with serious chronic mental disabilities” constitutes a particular social group.  On remand, the BIA held: “Mental disabilities are clearly immutable characteristics in that those suffering from them cannot change their disability. Furthermore, people with serious and chronic mental disabilities are socially visible and the evidence of record establishes that [in Peru] they are often discriminated against and treated in an inhumane manner.” 

Mazel Tov to all on these successful outcomes.

Continue reading

2 Comments

A Short “Wish List” for the Refugee Protection Act

by Jason Dzubow

The RPA provides important new protections to asylum seekers, particularly the most vulnerable asylum seekers such as people who are pro se or detained.  However, I can think of a couple important issues that are not addressed.  Below are some problems that my clients have faced over and over again, and some suggested solutions.

The Asylum Clock 

The broken asylum clock isn't even correct twice a day

Within the circle of attorneys who represent asylum seekers, the “asylum clock” may be the most discussed problem in need of resolution (Penn State Dickinson School of Law recently issued a comprehensive report about the asylum clock). When a client files an affirmative application for asylum, the clock starts to run.  When the clock reaches 150 days, the applicant may file for an Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”).  The EAD is very important because it allows an asylum seeker to work legally in the United States, and serves as a form of identification.  The problem is, if the alien does anything to delay his case, the clock stops, and generally will not re-start.  So, for example, if an alien is represented by counsel, and the attorney cannot accept a particular court date due to a conflict, the clock stops and the alien never receives an EAD.  Also, when an unrepresented asylum seeker asks for more time to find an attorney, the clock stops.  It is usually impossible to restart the clock. 

Aliens who enter the United States without inspection or aliens who file for asylum after one year in the U.S. do not have a clock, and it is usually not possible for them to obtain an EAD.

Thus, many asylum seekers endure one to two year waits (which are common in Immigration Court) without the ability to work legally, and without any form of identification.

One possible solution to this problem is to give the Immigration Judges more authority to grant an EAD.  If the alien is deliberately causing delay in his case, the IJ should not grant an EAD.  But where the delay is not caused by the alien or is reasonable, the alien should receive an EAD.

Employment Authorization Document

A second area in need of reform is the EAD itself.  Aliens granted asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the UN Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) are entitled to an EAD.  The EAD is valid for one year and must then be renewed.  The validity period of the EAD should be changed to at least two years.

Aliens with asylum generally apply for their lawful permanent residency (i.e., their green card) after one year.  However, aliens who have withholding of removal or CAT relief are not eligible to become LPRs.  Such aliens must renew their EADs every year.  This can be problematic for a number of reasons.  First, the cost to renew is $340.00 every year.  For aliens with limited means, this sum may be prohibitive.  Second, assuming the alien remembers to file on time, the new EAD may or may not arrive prior to the expiration of the old EAD.  If the new EAD does not arrive in time, the alien’s job might be jeopardized, as employers will often terminate employees without a valid EAD.  Third, many states link the driver’s license to the EAD, so when the EAD expires, the driver’s license expires.  Even if the EAD arrives on time, there may be a delay in renewing the driver’s license.  The alien could be left without a valid driver’s license (or any valid ID).

These problems would be greatly reduced if the EAD were valid for two (or more) years, instead of one year. 

Finally, Some Media Attention

The RPA has been largly ignored by the media.  Last week, Josh Shahyar had an article in the Huffington Post, “The Immigration Bill No One Is Talking About.”  Hopefully the article adds some momentum to the push for this worthy piece of legislation.

Continue reading

3 Comments

Immigration Court Backlog Keeps Getting Worse

by Jason Dzubow

A new report by TRAC, a group that collects information on immigration cases, finds that the backlog in Immigration Courts is worse than ever: 

The number of cases awaiting resolution before the Immigration Courts reached a new all-time high of 242,776 at the end of March 2010, according to very timely government enforcement data obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). The case backlog has continued to grow — up 6.3 percent — since TRAC’s last report four months ago, and nearly a third higher (30.4%) than levels a mere 18 months ago.

"Is it time for my immigration hearing yet?"

The backlog has resulted in longer delays in Immigration Court:

Wait times have also continued to inch upward. The average time these pending cases have been waiting in the Immigration Courts of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is now 443 days.

The longest delays are in California, where the average wait time is 627 days.  TRAC blames the delays mainly on an insufficient number of IJs.  I’ve discussed that issue before (We Need More Judges).  In a recent exchange with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), that group argued that aliens are largly to blame for delays since they abuse the system to prolong (or completely avoid) removal.  Maybe I will devote a future blog post to the reasons for delay, but for now, it seems the wait times are longer than ever and there is little relief in sight. 

Continue reading

FAIR Asks EOIR to Violate the Law in Aunt Onyango’s Case

by Jason Dzubow

The Federation for American Immigration Reform is calling upon the Justice Department and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) to violate the law and make public the record in the recently-decided asylum case of President Obama’s aunt.  PR Newswire reports:

Today’s decision granting President Obama’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango, political asylum provides a case study in how those seeking to evade U.S. immigration laws can manipulate the system, charged the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).  FAIR also demanded that the entire record of her case, which was rendered after years of delay and after Ms. Onyango refused to comply with a deportation order, be made public.

Judge Leonard Shapiro did not reveal the basis for his decision to grant asylum to Ms. Onyango and Ms. Onyango’s attorney has declared that his client wants to keep the decision confidential.  “Given Onyango’s relationship to the president, the American people have a right to know on what grounds Ms. Onyango’s asylum was granted,” [FAIR President Dan] Stein said.  “Illness and political turmoil in one’s homeland are not recognized as grounds for being granted asylum.  Defining asylum so broadly not only exceeds any reasonable interpretation of the law, but would make countless millions of people around the world eligible for asylum in the U.S.   Americans deserve to know whether the system worked.”

Of course Mr. Stein has no idea why Ms. Onyango was granted asylum, but that clearly did not stop him from forming an opinion.  Worse, his “demand” that the decision be made public directly contradicts the law.  From the EOIR Practice Manual:

Evidentiary hearings involving an application for asylum or withholding of removal (“restriction on removal”), or a claim brought under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, are open to the public unless the respondent expressly requests that the hearing be closed.  In cases involving these applications or claims, the Immigration Judge inquires whether the respondent requests such closure. 

Ms. Onyango has requested that the hearing be closed and that should be the end of the matter.  Confidentiality in asylum cases is important to protect asylum seekers and their families.  While there are legitimate issues to be raised concerning the asylum process, Mr. Stein’s “demand” demonstrates his callous disregard for the rights and safety of asylum seekers.   

Continue reading

4 Comments

Senate Hearing on the Refugee Protection Act

by Jason Dzubow

The Senate Judiciary committee held a hearing yesterday on the Refugee Protection Act.  I wasn’t able to attend, but the Senate conveniently records such hearings, and you can view it here. 

Doggone it, people like the RPA

My friend who attended thought it did not go very well for supporters of the bill.  I can’t say I agree, though the last five minutes, when neither of the pro-RPA witnesses could answer Senator Franken’s softball questions and each tried to defer to the other, was not a shining moment.  Here are some other moments worth mentioning:

The ranking Republican, Senator Sessions from Alabama, raised some legitimate (and some not-so-legitimate) concerns that will probably need to be addressed if the bill is ever to become law.  Of course, the first issue was national security.  He felt that the RPA would allow Osama Bin Laden’s wife (wives?) and children to claim asylum in the United States, as the law relaxes barriers for family members of terrorists.  Given the limited number of people we can admit each year, he argued, we would be better off admitting people without close ties to terrorists.  He also stated that the RPA would broaden the definition of “asylum seeker,” and thus encourage more fraudulent claims.  He questioned how many people we could realistically allow to enter the United States as refugees and asylees.  He argued that we could not admit everyone who meets the definition of a refugee, and said that if things fell apart in Afghanistan or Iraq, we could not take in all the people who sided with us in those wars.

There were two pro-RPA witnesses, Dan Glickman of Refugees International and Patrick Giantonio of Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates.  They argued that the one-year filing deadline does not serve its intended purpose of reducing fraud.  Mr. Giantonio noted that many asylum seekers who fail to file within one year of arrival receive withholding of removal or relief under the UN Convention Against Torture.  Both forms of relief have a higher burden of proof than asylum.  Thus, if the one year deadline were not an issue, such people would have qualified for asylum (I agree with this point).  From the alien’s point of view, asylum is a more desirable outcome than the other forms of relief, but the witnesses did not mention the benefits of asylum.  The pro-RPA witnesses also emphasized that the bill would not compromise national security because refugees and asylum seekers would remain subject to all the same background checks that are currently required.  Mr. Giantonio also briefly mentioned some of the deleterious effects of immigration detention on asylum seekers.

Igor V. Timofeyev, a former DHS official and a Soviet Jewish refugee, testified in his personal capacity.  He appeared as the anti-RPA witness, though his criticisms were fairly tame (refreshing given the normal discourse on most immigration-related issues).  His concerns were national security, national security, and national security.  He also mentioned that federal appeals courts are overburdened with immigration cases.

Finally, it bears mentioning that Senator Leahy included in the record a letter signed by 89 faith-based, human rights, legal services and refugee assistance organizations and 99 individual asylum law practitioners, pro bono attorneys, law professors and other experts in the field (including this humble blogger).    

Continue reading

The Refugee Protection Act and Asylum Interviews

by Jason Dzubow

Under INA § 235(b), an alien who appears at the border and claims asylum or expresses a fear of persecution must be interviewed.  The Refugee Protection Act would require DHS to record these interviews.

A DHS employee demonstrates the agency's latest recording equipment

Currently, asylum interviews at the border (or the airport) are generally not recorded.  As a result, there are often disputes about what the alien said at the interview.  For example, I worked on a case recently where an Ethiopian asylum seeker entered the United States at the Mexican border.  He was immediately detained and requested asylum.  His friend and traveling companion served as my client’s interpreter.  The Border Patrol agent wrote down the client’s responses to the agent’s questions.  The written statement was not consistent with my client’s statements in court, and the IJ found the client’s testimony incredible; she denied asylum.  On appeal, the BIA reversed and remanded the case for, among other things, a more thorough examination of what happened at the border.  Had the border conversation been recorded, the IJ could have more definitively determined whether an inconsistency existed, and could have made a more accurate credibility determination.

IJs often rely on prior inconsistent statements to make adverse credibility findings, and I have worked on a number of cases where prior statements were used for impeachment purposes.  Such statements are often not recorded (neither the Border Patrol nor the Asylum Office records interviews).  Thus, the accuracy of the prior statements is frequently an issue.  If the interviews were recorded, we would have a more accurate record, and hence, more accurate credibility determinations.  The RPA provides for recorded interviews at the border.  It should also provide for recorded interviews at the Asylum Office.

Continue reading

3 Comments

President Obama’s Aunt Wins Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

An Immigration Judge in Boston granted asylum to President Obama’s aunt Zeituni Onyango, a Kenyan national who has been in the U.S. since 2000.  Ms. Onyango first applied for asylum in 2002.  She was initially denied, but then either appealed or reopened her case (I have found nothing definitive about the course of the litigation).  Earlier today, the IJ granted her application for asylum. 

Obama's aunt holds a photo of herself and a little-known state senator

At least as far as I can tell, the basis for Ms. Onyango’s claim has not been made public.  My guess is that after Obama was elected president (or at least after he became nationally and internationally known), Ms. Onyango filed a motion to reopen her case and asserted that she would face persecution from people who wished to harm her family (the Obama family).  Given the various threats to our country, this seems a reasonable claim.  Although perhaps the possibility of her facing harm in Kenya is remote (Obama’s grandmother is living there peacefully), it’s easy to understand why an IJ would be reluctant to send her back.  She would make a tempting target for extremists, and it would be a blow to the U.S. if she were harmed.  Under these circumstances–and given the fairly low threshold for asylum–it’s not a surprise that the IJ granted Ms. Onyango’s claim.

Professional Obama-hater Michelle Malkin and others have raised the question of whether Ms. Onyango received special treatment because of her relationship with the President.  Of course, I have no idea (and neither do they), but special treatment hardly seems necessary in a case like Ms. Onyango’s.  I once represented an Afghani woman who received a fellowship to study in the United States.  A university brought her here and supported her, and the local press covered her progress for four years.  Towards the end of her fellowship, extremists in her country threatened her, and we applied for asylum.  I argued that she was a prime target for anti-American extremists because of her relationship with our country–had she been harmed in Afghanistan, it would have been seen as a major victory for our enemies.  The Asylum Office granted her application.  Ms. Onyango’s situation was similar to my client’s, in that our enemies would view an attack against her as an attack against the United States.  Not surprisingly, the IJ was not willing to take that risk.

Continue reading

Senate Hearing on the Refugee Protection Act

by Jason Dzubow

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing on “Renewing America’s Commitment to the Refugee Convention: The Refugee Protection Act of 2010” for Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.  The scheduled witnesses are: (1) The Honorable Dan Glickman, President, Refugees International; (2) Patrick Giantonio, Executive Director, Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates; and (3) Igor V. Timofeyev, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP

Continue reading

The BIA on Frivolous Asylum Applications

by Jason Dzubow

Biao Yang probably isn’t the first man to tell an exaggerated story about his courage in defense of a woman’s honor. Similarly self-aggrandizing stories have no doubt been told in countless bars and around hundreds of water coolers.

Narrative license of this sort usually carries little risk. A drinking buddy or co-worker might express disbelief by making reference to bovine excrement.

But the personal consequences of Yang’s embellishments are far more serious, as they will likely result in his deportation and the imposition of a lifetime bar to future immigration benefits. The consequences of Yang’s narrative excesses also had a broader effect, as they were the focus of a recent BIA decision that added to the administrative corpus of immigration law by clarifying the standards under which asylum claims are determined to have been made frivolously.

TOUGH GUY

Yang, a Chinese national, arrived in Chicago in 2002. After touching down, he told immigration officials at O’Hare that he had fled his country because “family planning authorities” – bureaucrats tasked with enforcing the country’s “One Child” policies – had forced his girlfriend to abort her pregnancy and that they wanted to arrest him.

Poster extolling the virtues of the one child policy

The embellishments would come in an asylum application filed 18 months later. In that application, Yang asserted that he got into a scuffle with and injured one of the abortionist bureaucrats who had come to his house to escort his girlfriend to the hospital. He further claimed to have been beaten and detained for his fearless acts. And then he claimed that he made a prison break and left the country.

IJ DECISION AND SECOND CIRCUIT REMAND

None of these details had been mentioned during the airport interview, however. This and other suspicious aspects of Yang’s story – including chronological discrepancies , “rank inconsistencies” within his testimony, and the sheer “implausibility” of his prison-break story – led an immigration judge to render an “adverse credibility determination.”

The result was denial of Yang’s asylum claim. But the IJ further held that these inconsistencies indicated that Yang’s asylum claim had been filed frivolously – which resulted in the imposition of a lifetime bar to future immigration benefits.

The IJ’s decision was affirmed by the BIA.  However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit remanded because the case exposed vagueness in the existing BIA standard for making a “frivolousness” determination. Those standards included:

[A] specific finding by the Immigration Judge or the Board that the alien knowingly filed a frivolous application … [and] … sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that a material element of the asylum application was deliberately fabricated

The Second Circuit examined:

to what extent the IJ is required to set out his or her factual findings to support a frivolousness determination separately from the adverse credibility determination and to what extent he or she is permitted to incorporate by reference the findings made to support an adverse credibility determination.

BIA CLARIFICATIONS

On remand, Matter of B-Y-, 25 I&N Dec. 236 (BIA 2010), the BIA made the following clarifications:

Factual findings made in reaching an adverse credibility determination can be incorporated into the findings made in reaching a frivolousness determination … but will not be sufficient … the frivolousness determination requires additional, explicit findings of “materiality” and “deliberate fabrication.” 

The BIA stated:

In this case, as is often the situation, fact-finding regarding credibility overlaps with fact-finding as to whether an asylum application was frivolously filed. Both determinations involve the identification of inconsistencies and discrepancies in the asylum claim and consideration of any explanations offered for them. There may be circumstances where the pertinent facts do not overlap, and separate factual findings by an Immigration Judge will be necessary.

However, neither fairness nor clarity requires an Immigration Judge to separate and repeat those aspects of the credibility determination that overlap with the frivolousness determination.

… The frivolousness determination, however, requires explicit findings as to “materiality” and “deliberate fabrication” that are not required for an adverse credibility determination. As we indicated in Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. at 156, “[T]he Immigration Judge must separately address the question of frivolousness, including a discussion of the evidence supporting a finding that the respondent deliberately fabricated a material element of the asylum claim.”

Continue reading