Pity the Persecutors

by Jason Dzubow

Passover is the holiday where we remember the Jews’ exodus from slavery in Egypt. As we all know, it didn’t end well for the Egyptians, what with the 10 plagues (including death of the first born – oy vey!), and then the business about drowning in the Red Sea.

The Passover Seder is the meal where we re-tell the story of the Exodus. At the Seder, we dip our finger (or a spoon for the germ-o-phobes among us) into  our wine 10 times, and remove one drop each time. This reminds us that the joy of our liberation is diminished by the suffering of the Egyptians.  

Don't you Jews eat any other part of the Matzah?
Don’t you Jews eat any other part of the Matzah?

I often think about how the source countries for my clients are affected by my clients’ departure. Many of my clients are well educated and talented people. They are exactly the type of people the source countries need in order to improve. The only problem is that such people are often targeted by fascist regimes (like the Syrian government) or extremists movements (like the Taliban).

Some would argue that people like my clients should stay in their countries and work (or fight) for change. That is easy to say for people who do not live in such places, and who do not face threats to themselves and their family members. Many of my clients did, in fact, work for change in their countries before they left. For example, I am about to file the case of an Afghan man who worked for various NGOs helping children and women. After receiving many threats, he was brutally attacked with a knife (necessitating numerous surgeries), and finally fled for his life. His case is in some ways typical of my clients. They continue their good work in the face of death threats, but at some point, they feel compelled to leave. International humanitarian law exists to help such people, and my feeling is that each person needs to make his own decision about whether to stay or go (the Washington Post recently ran a depressing photo essay about this choice in the context of Syria).

One thing that seems obvious is that when such people leave, their home countries are diminished. While I can’t say I pity the persecutors, I do feel bad that good people–people who could make a difference in their home countries–are forced to leave. This harms the people who are left behind and helps create a vicious cycle: Conditions are bad, so good people leave, and then conditions get worse, so more good people leave.

My one hope, which I see with my clients, is that they often remain engaged trying to help their homelands. Many of my clients are journalists and human rights activists. They can continue to support change in their home countries (by working for the media, for human rights organizations or for the U.S. government), while living safely in the United States. 

So as we celebrate Passover, I am thankful for freedom and safety. But I will also try to remain cognizant of those who are left behind.

Continue reading

Immigration Reform for Asylum Seekers, Part One

by Jason Dzubow

Now that Comprehensive Immigration Reform is finally on the table, I thought I would discuss my own “wish list” for reforming the asylum and humanitarian relief system. Human Rights First is in the forefront of the effort to include asylum reform in any CIR package, and they–along with scores of other organizations and law professors–have submitted recommendations to Congress and the President. Below is my own take on asylum reform, including some thoughts on Withholding of Removal and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture:

– One Year Filing Deadline: The current law requires aliens to file for asylum within one year of their arrival in the United States. There are two exceptions to this rule: (1) changed circumstances (i.e., it was safe to return home when the alien arrived here, but something changed, and it is no longer safe to return home); and (2) extraordinary circumstances (i.e., something prevented the alien from filing for asylum–maybe she was a child and did not have the capacity to file, or maybe she was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder). Aliens who cannot demonstrate an exception to the rule will be denied asylum if they file more than one year after they arrive in the U.S.

Also on my wish list: My Little Pony (with brush).
Also on my wish list: My Little Pony (with brush).

Supposedly the original purpose of the one-year rule was to prevent fraud. However, the real-life effect of the rule is to block legitimate refugees from obtaining asylum. One group in particular that has been negatively affected are LGBT asylum seekers. In many cases such people are not “out” when they arrive in the U.S., and it takes them time–often more than one year–to understand their sexual orientation and then decide to seek asylum. Other people harmed by the one-year rule include those who are emotionally unable to prepare their cases due to the severe traumas they suffered, people who do not know about the one-year requirement, and people who wait to seek asylum in the hope that country conditions back home will improve.

Having litigated dozens of cases where the one-year rule was a factor, I don’t see how it ever prevented fraud. It is an arbitrary rule, which does nothing except block legitimate asylum seekers from obtaining relief. My number one hope for asylum reform is that the one-year rule will be eliminated.

– Asylum Clock: I have written previously about the Asylum Clock. When an alien files for asylum, DHS starts a “clock.” When the clock reaches 150 days, the applicant can file for a work permit. If the applicant does anything to delay her case, the clock stops. Theoretically, when the delay ends, the clock should re-start. But thanks to ambiguous rules governing the Asylum Clock, that does not always happen.

Although I really can’t stand the Asylum Clock, I suppose I recognize that it is a necessary evil. Prior to the clock, it was common for aliens to file frivolous asylum applications in order to obtain a work permit. In those days, cases took years to adjudicate, so anyone claiming asylum could work lawfully in the U.S. for years before their case was denied. The Asylum Clock, combined with the fact that asylum cases–at least at the Asylum Offices–are usually decided in a matter of months, have greatly reduced frivolous applications. Although it has helped to reduce fraud, the Asylum Clock is incredibly annoying.

The bottom line for me is that the presumption of the Asylum Clock should be in favor of keeping the clock moving. If an Asylum Officer or an Immigration Judge finds that the alien is purposefully delaying his case or that the case is frivolous, they should stop the clock. But the clock should not be stopped for legitimate delays (For example, sometimes an attorney must refuse an appointment date due to a conflict. When this happens, the clock stops. But why should the alien be penalized because the attorney is unavailable on a particular date?). My “wish” here is that the Asylum Clock rules will be re-written to make it easier and faster for asylum seekers to get their work permits.

– Withholding of Removal and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”): There are two distinct categories of people who receive Withholding or CAT instead of asylum. One group are people who are ineligible for asylum because they are criminals or human rights abusers. The other group are people who missed the one-year filing deadline for asylum (and receive Withholding) and people who face torture in their countries, but not on account of one of the protected grounds for asylum (they receive CAT). Aliens who receive Withholding or CAT receive a work permit, which must be renewed every year, but they can never become residents. Unlike asylees, they cannot petition to bring immediate family members to the U.S. and if they leave the U.S., they cannot return. Finally, because few people have these statuses, people with CAT or Withholding often have trouble obtaining a driver’s license and convincing employers that they are lawfully present in the United States.

Frankly, I am not in favor of giving more benefits to criminals or human rights abusers who receive Withholding or CAT. Some immigration rights advocates would disagree with this (and there are legitimate reasons to disagree), but I feel that there should be consequences for our bad actions, and people who do not qualify for asylum due to their own bad conduct should suffer those consequences.

On the other hand, it is unfair to penalize people who receive Withholding or CAT because they missed a filing deadline, or because they face torture for some reason other than race, religion, nationality, particular social group or political opinion. My “wish” here is that such people receive some or all of the benefits normally given to asylum seekers. These people have done nothing wrong, and often they have suffered serious abuse in their homelands.

Well, that’s enough for now. I have a few more wishes, but I will cover those in a future post. 

Continue reading

13 Comments

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

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

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

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

Gay Rights and the UN: One Step Back, One Step Forward

by Jason Dzubow

Sexual orientation is all about identity: Are you gay or straight or bi or trans or questioning or something else?  It seems that the United Nations has some identity issues of its own when it comes to LGBT rights.    

This past September, a “traditional values” resolution sponsored by Russia passed in the UN Human Rights Counsel, 25-15, with seven abstentions (the U.S. voted against).  The text of the resolution and a list of countries and their votes can be found here.  The resolution reaffirms that “everyone is entitled to the rights and freedoms… without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”  The basic problem is that this list purposefully omits the reference to sexual orientation.  Thus (as usual), the term “traditional values” is code for “anti-gay.”  

The UN has a split personality when it comes to gay rights.

While this particular resolution will probably have little effect, I fear it is an unfortunate bellwether of member states’ positions on LGBT rights and protecting LGBT refugees.  As an aside, my first job as a practicing lawyer was at Catholic Community Services in New Jersey.  I remember being surprised that the Catholic Church–which generally opposes gay rights–was assisting gay asylum seekers.  When you think about it, this is not entirely inconsistent: While the Church opposes gay rights, it also opposes persecution of gay people.  My concern with the UN resolution is that it might be a harbinger of something more sinister–the contraction of protection for people facing persecution on account of their sexual orientation (in 2008, the UN recognized that sexual orientation was a basis for protection under the Refugee Convention).  

But as you might have guessed from the title of this piece, the news from the UN is not all bad. 

Late last month, UNHCR issued new guidelines concerning claims to refugee status based on sexual orientation and gender identity.  The guidelines state:

A proper analysis as to whether a LGBTI applicant is a refugee under the 1951 Convention needs to start from the premise that applicants are entitled to live in society as who they are and need not hide that.  As affirmed by the position adopted in a number of jurisdictions, sexual orientation and/or gender identity are fundamental aspects of human identity that are either innate or immutable, or that a person should not be required to give up or conceal.

The guidelines recognize persecution by governments, society, and family members, and also note that laws criminalizing homosexuality can rise to the level of persecution.

The guidelines also make recommendations concerning refugee status determinations for LGBT applicants.  Most of the recommendations seem like common sense, but I think they are helpful and–given the sentiments of many UN member states concerning LGBT people–worth repeating.  The recommendations include:

– An open and reassuring environment is often crucial to establishing trust between the interviewer and applicant
– Interviewers and decision makers need to maintain an objective approach so that they do not reach conclusions based on stereotypical, inaccurate or inappropriate perceptions of LGBTI individuals
– The interviewer and the interpreter must avoid expressing, whether verbally or through body language, any judgement about the applicant’s sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual behavior or relationship pattern
– Specialized training on the particular aspects of LGBTI refugee claims for decision makers, interviewers, interpreters, advocates and legal representatives is crucial
– Specific requests made by applicants in relation to the gender of interviewers or interpreters should be considered favorably
– Questioning about incidents of sexual violence needs to be conducted with the same sensitivity as in the case of any other sexual assault victims

The U.S. government is ahead of the game in this matter.  In January 2012, USCIS (with help from Immigration Equality) issued a training module to help Asylum Officers with LGBT cases.

So it seems that the UN is of two minds about LGBT rights.  There is no doubt that many countries and societies violently oppress and murder people just because of their sexual orientation.  For their sake, I hope the progressive states continue to pressure the UN to move forward on LGBT issues.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Russian Artist Exposes Gay Asylum Seekers

by Jason Dzubow

In his native Russia, artist and filmmaker Alexander Kargaltsev was beaten by police at a gay pride event and detained after he left a gay club.  He came to the U.S. in 2010 and received asylum in 2011.  Last week, Mr. Kargaltsev held his first solo exhibit at a new gallery, called 287 Spring, in downtown Manhattan (which hopefully is not now under water).

The exhibit is entitled “Asylum” and consists of large photos, each depicting a nude gay or bisexual Russian man, with New York City shown in the background.  The men have stern expressions, and many were photographed provocatively in public areas, such as Central Park.  Under each photo is a caption: “Granted Asylum” or “Asylum Pending.”

The artist, strategically placed in front of one of his photos.

According to curator Ivan Savvine, “The models’ nakedness is a powerful visual statement imbued with symbolism.  They are not nude but naked, for they had courage to shed the many layers of fear and come out to the world uncovered, vulnerable, yet proud.”  He continues, “Their naked bodies thus also reveal their experience as refugees, for every person seeking refuge rebuilds his or her life completely ‘naked,’ starting from scratch with no family or friends and often without the language they can speak or understand.”

As a humble immigration lawyer who received most of his artistic training from Bill Alexander, I can’t help but find this type of artist speak a bit pretentious.  Also, I really can’t imagine many of my clients posing nude in public (and–no offense to my clients–I don’t want to imagine it).  But I suppose Mr. Kargaltsev’s exhibit raises some interesting points.

I agree with the idea that refugees start their lives over “naked.”  But to me, the more interesting analogy between asylum seekers and nakedness is the idea of exposing one’s past history to the scrutiny of an Asylum Officer or an Immigration Judge (not to mention to the asylum seeker’s own lawyer).  Depending on the person, and on the problems he faced in the home country, relating the story of past persecution can be humiliating and traumatic.

I have represented rape victims and torture victims.  When such people apply for asylum, they need to tell these stories.  Sometimes, people do not behave honorably under the threat of persecution.  They need to relate those stories as well.  I remember one client who fled his home when government soldiers broke in to look for him.  He left his wife and children behind.  My client had to explain this to the Immigration Judge, which was extremely difficult for him to do.  This is the type of “exposure” I think about when I think of refugees.  And in some ways, it is similar to exposing oneself naked before the camera, flaws and all.

Mr. Kargaltsev’s photos are of gay asylum seekers from Russia.  The photos I’ve seen depict good-looking young men whose nudity is nothing to be ashamed of.  In my experience, the exposure endured by asylum seekers is a lot less attractive than Mr. Kargaltsev’s images.  While Mr. Kargaltsev’s photos certainly add to the dialogue about issues faced by asylum seekers, in my opinion they gloss over the ugly truths about refugees and the pain that they have endured.  A more realistic and challenging exhibit in this vein would be less pleasant to look at, but more useful to understanding the real lives of refugees.

Continue reading

2 Comments

New Canadian Law Attempts to Block Bogus Refugees

by Jason Dzubow

Canada is preparing to implement the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act later this year.  The law is ostensibly designed to protect Canada’s refugee law by weeding out false asylum claimants.  The provisions of the new law include the following:

– The immigration minister would have the power to designate which countries are safe without a committee including human rights experts.

– Rejected refugee claimants from “safe” countries would no longer be able to appeal the decision to the Immigration and Refugee Board (the administrative body that reviews asylum claims).

– Claimants from countries on the safe country list would have limited appeals rights and limited ability to apply for compassionate or humanitarian relief.

The law seems primarily targeted at the Roma (a/k/a Gypsies) who have been coming to Canada from Hungary in large numbers and requesting asylum.  According to the Canadian Immigration Minister, “almost 95 percent of Hungarian asylum claims [are] abandoned, withdrawn or rejected.”  The Minister states that “Countries whose nationals have an acceptance rate of 25% or less, or where 60% or more of claimants from a country have abandoned or withdrawn their claims … would be subject to designation” as a safe country, thus making it more difficult for them to successfully claim asylum.

Under the new Canadian law, Mexico is “safe.”

My first question about this new law is whether it is necessary.  Under the current system, people who can return safely will presumably have their cases denied anyway.  The new law is designed to streamline the system to allow people from certain countries to be deported more quickly.  Also, if people from “safe” countries know that their claims will likely be denied, they may decide not to seek asylum in Canada in the first place.  Proponents of the law claim that all this will save government resources.  But I wonder how many people will actually be dissuaded from coming and–for those who do seek asylum–how much money the government will actually save under the new, streamlined system.  Currently, 95% of asylum claimants from Hungary are unsuccessful, yet Hungarians keep coming to Canada.  If the current (very high) denial rate does not dissuade people from coming, how will the new law?  Further, those who seek asylum from “safe” countries are still entitled to certain procedures and benefits.  It is unclear how much the Canadian government will save by marginally reducing the protections available to such asylum seekers.

Assuming the law is needed, how effective will it be?  The idea of determining in advance whether a country is safe seems antithetical to international refugee law.  Someone once said that no country is safe for everyone all the time.  If 95% of Roma claims are denied, what type of harm do the remaining 5% face?  Also, just because a country has a low overall denial rate for asylum claims does not mean that it is safe.  To cite an example from our side of the border, the denial rate for Mexicans is quite high (about 98%), but certain people from Mexico–journalists and human rights activists–face real danger there.  Another example–while the overall asylum grant rate for Jamaicans is low, the grant for Jamaicans claiming asylum based on sexual orientation is relatively high.  My point is that designating a country “safe” just because the overall grant rate is low will likely result in legitimate asylum seekers being rejected and returned to face persecution. 

Despite these (and other) doubts, the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act will go into effect shortly.  We will then start to get a clearer idea of whether the law will save resources and how it will affect asylum seekers.

Continue reading

4 Comments

Failed Asylum Seeker Stuck in Samoa

by Jason Dzubow

Mikhail Sebastian is an Armenian from Azerbaijan who came to the United States on a Soviet passport in 1995.  After the break-up of the U.S.S.R., neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan would take him, and Mr. Sebastian ended up stateless. 

While in Samoa, beware the Wild Samoans (shown here with the late, great Cap’t Lou)!

He filed for asylum in the U.S., but his claim was ultimately denied (in 2002) and he was ordered removed.  The U.S. immigration authorities took Mr. Sebastian into custody, but after six months, he was released because there was no country that would accept him.  As with other people who cannot be deported, DHS issued Mr. Sebastian a work permit.  He was allowed to remain in the United States, but he did not have permission to travel abroad and then return.

According to a recent article in Salon, Mr. Sebastian has attempted to satisfy his urge to travel by visiting the most exotic American destinations he can find, including Guam, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii.  To facilitate his travels, he has a  “World Passport” from the World Service Authority, which purports to be a global-governmental organization.  A World Passport is a document that is supposed to confer world citizenship and allow travel.  I have some limited experience with the World Passport, and while I think it’s a nice idea, I would not feel confident to use it as a travel document.  Worse, I think their website is a bit misleading.  They claim that many countries accept the World Passport.  While many countries may have accepted the passport once or twice (possibly by mistake), most countries do not generally accept the passport for immigration purposes.

In any case, as part of his overseas travel in U.S. territory, Mr. Sebastian took a vacation to American Samoa, an unincorporated territory (whatever that means) of the United States.  His big mistake seems to have been flying over to plain old Samoa, which is an independent country.  Even if he had not traveled to Samoa, the trip to American Samoa required passing through customs, and when immigration authorities checked him before allowing him to return to the mainland (and saw the World Passport), they found that he had an old removal order.  As a result, he was not permitted to board the return flight, and he has been stranded in American Samoa ever since.

The Department of Homeland Security issued a statement about Mr. Sebastian:

In 2002, an immigration judge with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) ordered Sebastian to depart the United States. At that time, he was not in ICE custody as the agency had deferred action on his removal. In the meantime, he had been granted employment authorization. In December 2011 when Mr. Sebastian traveled to American Samoa and Samoa, he was prohibited from returning to the United States due to the immigration judge’s order.

So for the last 10 months, Mr. Sebastian has been stuck waiting for DHS to allow him to return to the mainland, and there is no end to his ordeal in sight.  Mr. Sebastian has been writing about his predicament, and you can read more about him in his own words here.  It seems he spends most of his time at the local McDonald’s, which has air conditioning and internet access.

His case is particularly strange in that he is actually in U.S.-controlled territory, but he is not allowed to return to the mainland.  If nothing else, Mr. Sebastian’s story serves as a cautionary tale.  If you have some type of deferred action, withholding of removal or Torture Convention relief, you are better off not pushing the limits by traveling to American “territories.”  It seems that Mr. Sebastian’s case is receiving some high-level attention, so likely it will be resolved at some point.  But I am quite certain that after 10 months in Samoa, he wishes he had never taken his vacation in the first place.

Continue reading

8 Comments

The Asylum Affidavit, Part 3: TMI

by Jason Dzubow

This is the final (and much delayed)  installment in a series about preparing a client’s asylum affidavit.  I previously wrote about the importance of including enough detail to support a claim.  Today I want to discuss how to provide details about sensitive topics, like rape or the murder of a loved one.

Immigration Judges love reading well crafted affidavits.

For obvious reasons, most asylum applications involving discussing unpleasant events.  However, some events are more unpleasant than others.  For example, I worked on a case where my client witnessed the murder of her mother and siblings during a genocide in her country.  At the time of these murders, my client was just 11 years old.  In another case, a client was arrested while returning from a political rally.  While she was in custody, two policemen raped her.  In a third case, my client quit his political party and, in a revenge attack, he was shot six times and left for dead.

This is pretty horrific stuff, so how do you present these event in a credible manner without forcing the clients to re-live their trauma?

First, I think it is helpful if the client understands why he needs to explain the painful aspects of his case.  I am no expert, but I believe that when a client is educated about the requirements for asylum, he feels more in control of his case and this might make it easier for him to talk about past trauma. 

Second, it is important to establish a rapport with the client so she feels comfortable and safe discussing difficult issues.  While this may seem like a no-brainer, it is often difficult for busy attorneys to spend the extra time our clients need to make sure they are comfortable.

Third, it is often not necessary to provide a lot of detail about a traumatic event in order to establish past persecution.  For example, in my case–where the political activist was raped by the police while returning from a demonstration–we provided details about her political involvement, the demonstration, and her detention.  When it came to the actual rape, we stated that the police raped her, but we provided no further details about the incident.  If she has established her credibility and the fact finder believes that she has been raped, that is enough to prove past persecution.  USCIS has some good training materials for Asylum Officers, which discuss this point:

The asylum officer can elicit sufficient detail to establish credibility and gain an understanding of the basis of the claim without probing too deeply into all the details of a painful experience.

This is a key point–it is not necessary to provide all the details about an event like a rape.  The fact that the person was raped is, in-and-of-itself, sufficient to show past persecution.

Finally, and to their credit, Asylum Officers, DHS Trial Attorneys, and Immigration Judges tend to be very sensitive to an alien’s trauma.  I tell my clients about this, as I believe it helps reduce the level of intimidation and makes it easier for them to discuss their history.

While it is probably not possible to prepare a case without discussing traumatic events to some extent, it is possible–and important–to minimize the secondary trauma our clients suffer while preparing their asylum applications.

Continue reading

3 Comments

DHS Ombudsman on Unaccompanied Child Asylum Seekers

by Jason Dzubow

The DHS Office of the Ombudsman recently issued formal recommendations for the treatment of unaccompanied minor asylum seekers.  The report is entitled Ensuring a Fair and Effective Asylum Process for Unaccompanied Alien Children.

In 2008, the law was changed so that review of unaccompanied child asylum cases was shifted from EOIR (the Immigration Courts) to USCIS (William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act).  The Ombudsman’s recommendations address problems with the implementation of the new law.

Statistics about the number of unaccompanied child asylum applicants are hard to come by.  According to the DHS Yearbook on Immigration Statistics, in FY 2011, there were 76 children under age 16 granted asylum and a total of 569 people under age 19 granted asylum.  These figures do not include dependent children.   Also, these are the number of asylum applications granted.  I did not find information about the number of denied asylum cases for unaccompanied children.

A USCIS employee works on writing regulations.

The Ombudsman’s recommendations touch on a number of problems, including redetermining unaccompanied alien child (“UAC”) status, difficulty rescheduling UAC interviews, inadequate methods and approaches to adjudication, and the failure of USCIS to issue regulations concerning UAC cases.  The Ombudsman made the following recommendations:

  1. Accept jurisdiction of UAC cases referred by the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
  2. Accept jurisdiction of cases filed by children in federal custody under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 
  3. Follow established UAC-specific procedures, expand implementation of certain best practices, and enlist clinical experts for quality assurance and training. 
  4. Limit Headquarters review to a process that can be managed within 30 days.
  5. Issue as soon as possible regulations regarding the UAC asylum process.

I want to comment on two of these recommendations.  First, the always exciting issue of jurisdiction.  It seems that the current procedure is for EOIR or CBP (Customs and Border Protection) to make a determination that the alien is an unaccompanied child asylum seeker.  Once that determination is made, the alien’s case is transferred to USCIS.  The USCIS Asylum Office then re-determines whether the alien is an unaccompanied child.  Essentially, the child–who may not have any documentation or other evidence about her age–is forced to prove that she is a child during two separate interviews.  If she fails to do so, potentially her case will be bounced back to EOIR, which has already determined that it does not have jurisdiction.  This seems like a potential problem for the alien; not mention a waste of resources for the government.

The second issue, which is probably more problematic, is the Ombudsman’s recommendation that USCIS issue regulations implementing the 2008 law.  Four years after the law was passed, USCIS has still not issued regulations concerning unaccompanied child asylum seekers.  This reminds me of the failure to issue regulations for the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”).  For years, immigration attorneys used an informal application process for VAWA cases because no regulations were issued.  Although I understand that issuing regulations can be complicated, I don’t see why it should take years.  Regulations are important to help guide adjudicators and attorneys, and to ensure fairness.  Of course, the Ombudsman cannot compel USCIS to issue regulations, but I would have liked to see a stronger statement about this problem.

Overall, the Ombudsman’s recommendations seem sensible.  Hopefully, USCIS will take its own advice and implement the recommendations promptly.

Continue reading

2 Comments