Conventional wisdom holds that resettling refugees and asylum seekers is a burden on the host country. Indeed, many of our nation’s immigration policies are based on this premise: We make it difficult for asylum seekers to enter the country; once they are here, their cases often take many years to resolve and in a majority of cases, they are denied; politicians routinely malign asylum seekers as economic parasites, criminals, and terrorists. But why should this be? What is the evidence that refugees and asylum seekers have a negative impact on their host countries?
Last month, I attended a family reunion/heritage trip for my wife’s family. Her maternal grandparents escaped from Austria to the United States prior to World War II. They and many others were forced to emigrate and leave everything behind because the government was persecuting Jews. (more…)
The United States has long been a haven for political refugees. But there are examples of operatives from the home government tracking, harming, and killing political opponents who have come to the U.S. for protection.
Probably the most famous example occurred only a few blocks from my office, in Sheridan Circle in 1976, when Chilean dissident Orlando Letelier and his American assistant Ronni Moffitt were killed by a car bomb. Mr. Letelier held a number of top government jobs in Chile during the Salvador Allende government, but after President Allende was ousted in a coup (and murdered along with thousands of others), Mr. Letelier was detained and tortured by the new government, led by Augusto Pinochet. Thanks to international pressure, Mr. Letelier was released and made his way to the U.S. Here, he worked and lobbied against the Pinochet regime. These activities brought him to the attention of Pinochet supporters and the Chilean secret police, who organized the assassination with help from several anti-Castro Cubans. Mr. Letelier and Ms. Moffitt were killed when a bomb planted in their car exploded. Ms. Moffitt’s husband was injured. Ultimately, a number of Chileans and Cubans were charged in relation to the murders, though none served more than a few years in prison. (more…)
A common question for asylees (people who have been granted asylum) is whether they can travel using their home country passport. If all were right in the world, this would never be an issue. Asylees and Green Card holders who received their status based on asylum are eligible for a Refugee Travel Document, and it is best to use the RTD instead of your home country passport.
Unfortunately, the RTD is valid for only one year, takes 10 or 11 months to renew, and is not accepted by many countries. For these reasons, asylees (and people who received a Green Card based on asylum) are often unable to use the RTD and are left with a difficult choice: Either skip the trip or travel using the home country passport, which can potentially have negative implications for a person’s status in the United States.
In this post, we will talk about the RTD and then discuss travel using a passport from your home country. (more…)
In the late 1990s, I was a law clerk in the Arlington, Virginia Immigration Court. My most memorable case involved a wealthy Russian businessman named Alex Konanykhin and his wife, Elena Gratcheva. Mr. Konanykhin made his fortune–around a quarter billion dollars–in the Wild West of post-Soviet Russia, but was then chased from his country by former KGB agents and criminals intent on stealing his money. The Individual Hearing that I attended took a full week, which is almost unheard of in Immigration Court. Mr. Konanykhin’s attorney was the legendary Michael Maggio, who I got to know a bit during the trial. My role was to sit in the courtroom and take notes. After the hearing, I helped the Immigration Judge write up the decision granting asylum.
There was more to this case, including an appeal to the BIA, improper behavior by several U.S. government officials that resulted in a $100,000 payment to Mr. Konanykhin, an unsuccessful attempt by the couple to evade border authorities and enter Canada, and several different federal court cases. When the dust finally settled from this ten-year odyssey, Mr. Konanykhin received asylum in the U.S. (around the same time, his wife–who was a dependent on his case–passed away). (more…)
Vladimir Putin has had a gun to the head of Ukraine for years. The most recent troubles began in 2014, when a pro-Russian president of Ukraine fled to Russia, rather than submit to an impeachment vote (he was impeached anyway). Several regions of Ukraine declared loyalty to the former president, and fighting broke out. Ultimately, parts of Ukraine came under Kremlin control, including the Crimean peninsula, which Russia annexed after an “election” by that region’s residents. Since then, fighting and allegations between the two nations have waxed and waned, but the Russians did not move towards a major escalation–until recently.
The current buildup began last fall, and there are now more than 100,000 Russian soldiers and Ukrainian separatists deployed for war. Analyst have suggested that a large-scale invasion is likely in the coming days or weeks. What does this mean for Ukrainian citizens in the United States who face possible persecution if Russia takes over or installs a pro-Russian puppet? Can such people file for asylum now, even though a Russian invasion is still speculative? (more…)
As an attorney who represents asylum seekers, I believe our country has a moral duty to help those coming to us for protection. I also believe that we as a nation benefit from our asylum system. Aside from enriching our country with patriotic, hard-working individuals, the asylum system makes manifest our highest ideals–freedom of religion and speech, democracy, equality, and women’s and minorities’ rights.
Unfortunately, those of us who support a robust humanitarian immigration system have not convinced enough of our countrymen on that point. Indeed, a poll of Trump voters found that their #2 and #3 most important issues are more secure borders and a more restrictive immigration system (the #1 issue for these voters was preservation of individual rights). Contrast that with Biden voters, who feel less strongly about reducing barriers to migration (ranking “being open to immigration” as the #27 most important issue facing our country, out of 55 issues surveyed).
There is little doubt that these views find expression in the voting booth–President Trump based his 2016 campaign on anti-immigration themes and we know how that turned out. (more…)
There’s never a lack of bad news to report in asylum world, but it’s almost the New Year, and so I’d rather focus on the positive. A year ago, I wasn’t sure whether President Trump would even leave office, but–fortunately for our democracy–he did. At the time, immigrant advocates were hopeful that President Biden would reverse many of the bad policies enacted by his predecessor. While change has been slower and less consistent than expected, there are certainly positive developments to report.
Most obvious is the general attitude towards asylum seekers. During the Trump Administration, officials from the top down viewed asylum seekers as fraudsters and criminals who were intent on cheating the system. While many of the lower-level appointees from the Trump Administration remain, the overall attitude towards asylum seekers is certainly more balanced and respectful. The tone from the President and his leadership team is also more positive. And that makes a difference “in the trenches,” where decisionmakers are more willing to grant relief when they don’t feel that such a decision goes against their bosses’ preference. (more…)
This post is by Amy Doring, the Asylee Outreach Specialist at HIAS Headquarters in Maryland. The HIAS Asylee Outreach Project can be reached at asyleeoutreach@hias.orgor at (240) 284-3306. Learn more about the initiative on its website, asyleeoutreach.org, and follow @asyleeoutreach on Facebook to attend an upcoming national Asylee Benefits Orientation webinar. If you are an asylee in Maryland, please reach out to the Asylee Outreach Project to access resettlement services. If you are in another state, please visit the For Asylees page of the project’s website to contact a resettlement agency near you.
Asylees are eligible for a variety of refugee benefits and services following their asylum grant. If you’re an asylee or an attorney and this is the first time you’re hearing about asylee benefits—you’re not alone! Fewer than 20% of asylees access resettlement benefits, most often because they are unaware that they are eligible for these benefits, or that they even exist.
Benefits for asylees are funded by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and include, but are not limited to: Cash assistance, medical insurance, employment services, English classes, and job training. It’s important to note that eligibility for these benefits is time sensitive. Free health screenings, which will help satisfy medical requirements for your future Green Card applications, are available only during the first three months after an asylum grant. Eligibility for refugee cash assistance and medical insurance, in turn, ends eight months after the date of an asylum grant. Lastly, the availability of free English classes, job training, case management, and employment support services ends five years after an asylum grant. With these strict timelines, it is immensely important that asylees be connected with resettlement services as soon as possible to take full advantage. Family members who are derivative asylees will also be eligible for these same benefits. (more…)
This week I attended an asylum interview for my Afghan client. He was a high-ranking government worker and a member of a secular political party. His daughters were educated and one of his sons was a diplomat. Because my client worked for the government and educated his daughters, he and his family became targets for the Taliban. They kidnapped and brutally murdered my client’s young son. They kidnapped a second son and held him for over two years, until he was finally freed during a military operation. That son has not been the same mentally or physically since his return. A third son was severely injured in a Taliban suicide bombing. In addition, a Taliban soldier beat up my client’s wife and repeatedly threatened my client and members of his family. During our practice session, my client’s wife sat nearby weeping as her husband recited their family’s story. As of this writing, my client has not been able to contact his adult daughters in Afghanistan, and he fears they could be subject to forced Taliban marriages or worse.
The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan happened more quickly than anyone predicted, but perhaps this result was inevitable. Or perhaps not. As we hear from all the Monday-morning quarterbacks about what should have happened, I notice that the voices of one important group are largely missing–the Afghan people themselves. We heard little or nothing from them when we invaded Afghanistan in 2001, as we shifted strategies and generals over the intervening years and decades, and during the draw-down that has been on-going for I-don’t-know-how-long. Why is it that we seem never to hear from the Afghan people? (more…)
In the world today, there are about 82.4 million people who have been forcibly displaced from their homes. If these people could form their own country, it would be the 20th most populous nation on Earth (about the same size as Germany). Confronted with this problem, the International Olympic Committee created a Refugee Team, which first competed in 2016 in Rio de Janeiro. The current Games is the second summer Olympics for the Refugee Team, which consists of 29 athletes, representing 11 countries.
Each of these athletes has overcome tremendous odds. Many have suffered severe trauma. Despite these obstacles, they have excelled in their respective sports and have reached the Olympics. You can learn more about all 29 of these amazing athletes at the IOC website, and below, I’ve selected a few of their biographies to give you a sense of the team. (more…)
We’ll return to our regularly-scheduled content next week, but here, I wanted to share some (mostly) positive reviews I’ve received for my new book, The Asylumist: How to Seek Asylum in the United States and Keep Your Sanity. Proceeds from the book will benefit asylum-related charities, and you can purchase copies here. Without further ado–
Jason Dzubow is a leader in the new due process army and part of the “gold standard” for practicing asylum aficionados. For over ten years, his blog “The Asylumist” has been providing “practice tips” and sage advice for asylum seekers, attorneys, and even Immigration Judges. Now, in his new book, Jason collects “The Asylumist’s Greatest Hits”—his best and most useful blog posts—and updates them to reflect the current state (or dystopia) of the law. Understanding the process is essential for protecting your rights! The Asylumist: How to Seek Asylum in the United States and Keep Your Sanity provides clear, accessible, practical, useful guidance, with a touch of humor, to help you navigate the asylum system. It’s an essential “problem-solving tool” for asylum applicants, attorneys, policy makers, and anyone interested in ensuring that asylum seekers obtain the protection that they need and deserve and in restoring due process and best practices to our now sadly and badly broken, dysfunctional, and intentionally unfair asylum system. Due Process Forever! — Paul Wickham Schmidt, Former Chair, Board of Immigration Appeals, and blogger at ImmigrationCourtside.com
Jason Dzubow is a thoughtful and balanced voice in the often highly charged world of immigration. He cares deeply about the law and the people it impacts, from those seeking refuge to those tasked with administering the processes for delivering both relief and justice. In his new book, The Asylumist: How to Seek Asylum and Keep Your Sanity, he offers pragmatic advice and valuable insights on asylum and many other issues in the immigration arena. — MaryBeth Keller, Former Chief Immigration Judge of the United States
The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 is finally here. It was unveiled last week by Senator Bob Menendez and Representative Linda Sanchez. The bill is very ambitious in scope, and aims to legalize about 11 million people, including “undocumented” immigrants, Dreamers, and people with Temporary Protected Status.
The odds-makers in the media seem to give the bill little chance of passing through the Senate, which requires at least ten Republicans to join with all the Democrats and Independents in order to overcome a filibuster. Some Senators (notably Lindsey Graham) have signaled a potential willingness to support a smaller bill–maybe one that would legalize Dreamers (also known as beneficiaries of DACA). This dilemma–which proponents of immigration reform have faced for decades–is nothing new: Go big and have more trouble passing a bill, or go small and help fewer people. We will have to see how things go, and certainly immigrant advocates need to be lobbying for a more comprehensive bill.
The bill itself is over 350 pages long and covers many different aspects of immigration. In this post, I will focus on a few points that directly affect asylum seekers. You can find basic summaries of the entire bill at Vox and Wikipedia, and a more comprehensive summary from blogger extraordinaire Greg Siskind. Here, though, we’ll stick to discussing only those provisions that relate most directly to asylum seekers. (more…)
The final step in the asylum journey is U.S. citizenship. When an asylee applies for citizenship, there are some unique issues to be aware of, and we’ll discuss those here.
First, let’s talk about the time frame. If you are a regular reader of this blog, you probably already know that the wait time for an asylum case is unpredictable. Some (lucky few) people file a case and complete it within a few months, but the large majority of asylum applicants wait years for a decision. If you win your asylum case at the Asylum Office or in Immigration Court, you have asylum status, and are eligible to file for your Green Card after one year of physical presence in the U.S. This means that if you leave the United States during this period, you have to wait additional time to apply for the Green Card. For example, if you leave the country for two weeks, you have to wait one year and two weeks from the date you received asylum before you are eligible to apply for a Green Card.
The time frame to process a Green Card is also unpredictable. If you check the USCIS processing times, you will see that wait times range from under one year to over 3½ years. In my practice, most asylees seem to get their Green Cards in one or two years. When an asylee receives a Green Card, the card is back-dated one year. Meaning, if you receive your Green Card on December 1, 2020, the card will indicate that you have been a lawful permanent resident (a Green Card holder) since December 1, 2019. Most people will be eligible to file for citizenship five years after the date listed on the Green Card (so in this example, December 1, 2024). And in fact, you are allowed to mail the citizenship form (the N-400) up to 90 days before the five-year anniversary (in our example, this would be about September 2, 2024). That said, if you leave the United States for significant periods of time, or for any one trip of six months or more, or if you’ve recently moved to a new state, you might have to wait longer than five years to apply for citizenship.
If you apply for asylum now, you should be a U.S. citizen by the time Barron Trump runs for President.
Processing times for the N-400 are also all over the map, but most offices seem to complete their cases between six months and two years after filing. So overall, from filing for asylum to becoming a U.S. citizen, most applicants are looking at a wait time of between eight and 13 years.
Now let’s talk about some of the challenges asylum seekers face on the path to becoming U.S. citizens.
First is the Green Card form, the I-485, itself. The problem here is that this form contains dozens of questions, many of which are quite confusing. Mistakes on this form can lead to issues during the naturalization process. I’ve written previously about some of the pitfalls on the I-485. The problem is compounded by the fact that most principal asylees are not interviewed during the Green Card process, and so a USCIS officer never asks you to clarify or correct your answers on the I-485 (dependent asylees are supposed to all be interviewed during the Green Card process, but this does not always happen). Thus, if you make a mistake on the I-485, or if your answers between the I-589 (the asylum form) and the I-485 are inconsistent, this could cause problems at the naturalization stage, and could even cause USCIS to deny your application for citizenship.
The best way to protect yourself here is to make sure that the I-485, the I-589, and any other forms or visa applications you submitted are consistent–in terms of addresses, jobs, family members, membership in organizations, arrests (including political arrests), lies to the U.S. government (including when you applied for a visa), etc. If there are inconsistencies, you should explain those on the I-485 supplement page or in the cover letter. Also, make sure to keep a copy of all the forms and documents you submit to USCIS, so you will have those when you prepare for naturalization. If you do not have copies of your forms and documents, you can obtain them from the government through a Freedom of Information Act request.
A second challenge is the N-400, the naturalization form. This form also contains dozens of confusing questions, and the answers must be consistent with the answers you gave on your prior applications (forms I-589 and I-485). If not, you should explain the inconsistencies. During the naturalization process, USCIS looks closely at your entire history, and so issues that may have been overlooked during the I-485 process (where most people do not receive an interview) often come to light after the N-400 is filed.
One question that sometimes causes problems on the N-400 is whether you have ever given false or misleading information to the U.S. government. Say, for example, you listed your membership in a church on your I-589, but forgot to list that membership on the I-485. USCIS could–and I have seen this–accuse you of lying on the forms, since there is an inconsistency between the I-589 and the I-485, and you failed to mention this “misrepresentation” in response to the question on form N-400. The best way to avoid a problem is to be sure that all your forms are consistent, but if you do make a mistake, you can explain what happened and hopefully overcome the problem (in my experience, when you explain the inconsistencies, USCIS will generally approve the application).
Another challenge is the naturalization interview. Sometimes, asylees are asked about their asylum case during this interview. Of course, by the time you naturalize, many years may have passed since the events of your asylum case, and so you may not remember all the details. For this reason, it is a good idea to review your asylum case prior to the naturalization interview. Also, if you are asked a question and do not remember the answer, it is better to say that you do not know, rather than to guess and risk making an inconsistent statement. For the most part, officers rarely ask detailed questions about the old asylum case, but they could, and so you should prepare accordingly.
Finally, if the N-400 is approved, you will be scheduled for an oath ceremony and sworn in as a United States citizen. The whole affair is a long and often stressful process, but once the asylum case is approved, there is far less uncertainty and it is mainly a question of navigating the bureaucracy. If you keep copies of all your forms and documents, and you are careful that each application is consistent with prior applications, you should have little trouble moving through the process and–finally–becoming a U.S. citizen.
Next week is the election (in case you haven’t heard) and hopefully soon after, we will have a result. Whether the victor is Joe Biden or Donald Trump, immigration advocates have their work cut out for them.
If Mr. Trump wins a second term, it won’t be because he won the popular vote. It’s clear that more Americans will vote for his opponent (as they did in 2016). However, our system awards electoral votes by state, and states with lower populations–which tend to be more conservative–receive disproportionate representation. Perhaps there is some wisdom to this system, which disfavors change, since change is difficult and divisive, especially for those who already have power. Or maybe we would be better off with a system that is more responsive to the will of a simple majority. I am really not sure. In any event, as the President says, it is what it is.
So in terms of immigration, how would a second term look for President Trump? Since early 2017, the Trump Administration has been using its rule-making authority to restrict immigration in a variety of ways. This effort swung into high gear with the advent of the pandemic, and over the past eight months we’ve seen a barrage of changes, many of which make life more difficult for asylum seekers and immigrants. One thing we have not seen from President Trump is an effort to change the law, even when the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress (and remember, to change the law, Congress needs to pass a bill and the President has to sign it). Because the law has not changed, President Trump has had to work within the existing law to make regulatory and policy changes. When those changes have gone beyond the bounds of the law, courts have blocked them.
“Please vote as if my life depends on it.”
Assuming President Trump wins re-election and Republicans do not control both chambers of Congress (and it is very doubtful that Republicans will take the House), it is unlikely that we would see any positive immigration reform. Mr. Trump has periodically made noise about helping the Dreamers (people brought to the U.S. as children who do not have lawful permanent status here), and so perhaps we could see some bipartisan legislation to regularize their status. Also, there are some other possible areas of cooperation on immigration (temporary seasonal workers and Christian refugees, for example), but those are quite limited.
More likely, if Mr. Trump is granted a second term, we will see more of what we saw during the first term: Travel bans, reduction of due process protections, a weaponized bureaucracy designed to make it more difficult and expensive to obtain legal status in the U.S., regulatory changes that restrict eligibility for asylum and immigration, increased enforcement by ICE, punitive strategies to deter and harm asylum seekers at the border, etc. During the President’s first term, some (but not all) of his worst attacks were mitigated by the courts–mostly the lower courts, as the Supreme Court was more deferential to the President’s authority. Now, with the confirmation of a new conservative Justice on the Supreme Court, a second Trump Administration may be even less constrained in how it (mis)treats immigrants. All this will make it more difficult for non-citizens to receive the due process and the immigration benefits to which they are entitled under law, and the protection that many need to simply survive.
Finally, and it is no small matter, if Mr. Trump is returned to office, we can expect more lies about who immigrants and asylum seekers are, and about what they do when they get here. Demonizing non-citizens, minorities, and Muslims is an essential part of President Trump’s strategy and very unfortunately, his narrative has resonated with a significant portion of the electorate. Aside from fighting the Trump Administration’s policies in court, we also have to work to undermine the false narrative that he has been pushing.
In short, I expect that if President Trump is re-elected, we will see most of his restrictive policy changes pass judicial muster and his hateful and false rhetoric continue. All this will make for a difficult and painful situation for non-citizens and many others in our country.
If Joe Biden is elected, there is little doubt that the fate of asylum seekers and immigrants will be better: We can expect an end to the attacks on due process and rule of law, and to the bombardment of lies that we have come to expect about non-citizens. Mr. Biden has promised a number of positive changes, not least of which is to roll back many of President Trump’s abusive policies. Nevertheless, even under a Biden Administration, there will be much work to do.
For one thing, while Democrats will likely hold the House, it is quite likely that they will not control the Senate, meaning that any new legislation will have to be bipartisan. On its face, this should be a good thing–the broader the consensus on a new law, the better. However, if a Republican Senate behaves as it did during the Obama Administration, we can look forward to prolonged gridlock on immigration reform (and everything else). Even in a Democratic Senate, it may not be easy to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which has eluded us for decades. Advocates will have to push for legislation with our representatives and with the public.
In addition, it’s clear that more work needs to be done to educate the public about asylum seekers and immigrants. Though advocacy groups do significant outreach, the message hasn’t landed with many people. Advocates need to think more about how to communicate effectively with those who oppose immigration–how to reach them and how to engage with them.
For me, the choice on November 3rd is obvious. Joe Biden isn’t perfect, but he will restore due process and the rule of law to our immigration system. He will also be more honest about asylum seekers and immigrants. In addition, if he charts a moderate and common-sense course on immigration (and other issues), he might help diffuse some of the divisiveness that has grown to dangerous levels in our country. I hope that Mr. Biden is successful and that we see Democrats in charge of both Houses of Congress. But win or lose, immigration advocates will have work to do.
