If you are reading this blog (which presumably, you are), you already know about the massive delays at our nation’s Asylum Offices. There are currently about 543,000 pending cases, and some applicants have been waiting for an interview for six, seven, eight years or longer. Given that life happens during this long wait, applicants sometimes want to withdraw their application for asylum. In this post, we’ll talk about when it might be appropriate to withdraw a case and how to do that. (more…)
On October 27, 2022, a group of torture survivors held a protest outside the Arlington Asylum Office. The protesters were asylum seekers who have been waiting for five years or more for an interview. Their request was simple: Please interview me and give me a decision in my asylum case. (more…)
I wrote last time about recent updates from the Asylum Division. Here, I want to focus on one element of those updates: How the Asylum Offices are dealing with asylum applications from Afghan evacuees.
Since Afghanistan fell to the Taliban in August 2021, about 88,000 Afghans have been evacuated by the U.S. government and brought to our country. These are generally people who cooperated or worked with the United States or the prior Afghan government, plus their immediate family members. These Afghans would be at risk of harm or death in their country due to their affiliation with the United States or the prior government of Afghanistan.
Ideally, we would have brought these people here and given them permanent status, so they could feel stable and safe, and so they could start rebuilding their lives. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. A bill to regularize the status of Afghan evacuees–the Afghan Adjustment Act–has stalled in Congress, and so the evacuees are left in limbo, not knowing whether they can stay or whether they will have to leave. As a result, many evacuees have no other option but to seek asylum. This situation is absurd and insulting, and–adding injury to insult–the Asylum Offices are mishandling the Afghan’s applications. (more…)
In a meeting held earlier this month, we received some updates from the Asylum Division. Although Acting Director Sue Raufer could point to some positive developments in asylum world, the news is generally pretty bleak. In a development that will shock no one, the worst news relates to the backlog, which is growing at an unprecedented rate.
This article is by Allen Schwartz, a former Asylum Officer who now offers consulting services to asylum seekers and attorneys. He may be reached at allen.schwartz@visaconsults.com or (305) 528-6474. Learn more about him at his website, www.visaconsults.com.
One year ago, I contributed to The Asylumist by submitting a post entitled Reflections and Advice from a Recently-Retired Asylum Officer. Now, as the number of affirmative asylum interviews continue to increase at Asylum Offices across the country, I would like to highlight some red flags that could occur during these interviews. A good number of these red flags may be due to Asylum Officer (“AO”) burnout and/or lack of sufficient training/experience. (more…)
The governors of Texas, Arizona, and Florida have been transporting asylum seekers from the border to “sanctuary” jurisdictions, such as Washington, DC, New York City, Chicago, and Martha’s Vineyard. Many of these migrants have suffered persecution in their home countries and have undergone difficult and dangerous journeys to reach the United States. The governors have enticed them to travel from the border to other parts of the country by falsely promising them jobs, work permits, and other benefits. In most cases, the receiving localities have not been forewarned about the new arrivals, and so have had difficulty coordinating a humanitarian response.
Immigration advocates have referred to these transfers as a “cynical political game,” a “publicity stunt” and a “political ploy.” Others have called it an effort to “own the libs.” While I agree that lying to vulnerable people and manipulating them is cruel and immoral, I think we on the Left are not being honest or wise when we dismiss the migrant transports as mere political theater. The issues underlying the governors’ efforts are serious and we ignore those issues at our peril. (more…)
This article is by Stanislav Stanskikh, a Visiting Scholar at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Research Fellow at UNC-Chapel Hill, and founder of The New England Institute for Country Conditions Expertise. He may be reached here: stanskikh [at] countryconditions.expert
There is an ongoing debate about whether Russians fleeing political repressions and the military draft should be granted refuge in the United States and the West, or whether protection should be refused so that these potential refugees rebel against the Kremlin instead. Opponents also draw a line between “real” refugees and those who left Russia merely to save themselves despite their prior loyalty to the regime. While the Baltic countries and Poland are turning away new arrivals, Germany and some other EU members have extended their welcome by generously granting refugee status. The President of the European Council Charles Michel favors opening the EU to fleeing Russians.
What about the United States?
Recently, I have been presenting a new argument for my female asylum clients from Afghanistan–that if they return to their country, they face a “pattern or practice” of persecution. Under the Taliban government, women in Afghanistan cannot pursue an education or work in many professions, they cannot travel abroad or safely leave the house without a male companion, the government will not protect them from forced marriage or domestic abuse. For these reasons, the argument goes, any woman who lives in Afghanistan will suffer persecution. Ergo and ipso facto (to use some fancy lawyer language), every Afghan woman in the U.S. should qualify for asylum.
A similar argument could be made about asylum seekers from many different countries. Such a claim is particularly helpful where the applicant did not personally face any threats or harm, and so might otherwise have a weak case for protection under United States immigration law.
In this post, we will discuss the meaning of “pattern or practice” in the asylum context, who might benefit from this argument, and how to present such a claim. (more…)
Dear Asylum Office –
Did you ever have an annoying friend who keeps wanting to tell you what’s what? Who couldn’t accept that you’re not interested in his advice about how to improve your life? Who blathers on about this-and-that without noticing that you’ve nodded off? I get it. But here I am anyway. The fact is, my dear Asylum Office, you’re a mess and something needs to be done.
Please don’t misunderstand when I say that you’re a mess. I am speaking as a friend. Or maybe a frenemy. According to your own data, there are now (as of December 2021) more than 438,500 cases pending at our nation’s Asylum Offices. Many applicants have been waiting for years without an interview and with no real hope of receiving a decision any time soon. The good news is that you’ve hired 80 brand-spankin’ new officers to interview older (pre-2016) cases. But the concern is that these officers will not be used efficiently or fairly. Luckily, I am here to offer some unsolicited advice about maximizing efficiency and protecting due process of law. (more…)
It’s the rare occasion when I can report some good news, but it seems that USCIS is taking action to help people in the affirmative asylum backlog. According to the most recent data (from December 2021), there are about 438,500 cases pending at the Asylum Office. The large majority of these applicants have not yet received interviews. Now, USCIS has hired an additional 80 Asylum Officers who will be dedicated to interviewing applicants who filed for asylum on or before January 1, 2016, meaning that they will be interviewing asylum seekers who have been waiting the longest.
Here, we’ll discuss what this means for those applicants, and also for people who filed after January 1, 2016. I’ll also make some suggestions about how to schedule these interviews in a way that is fair to applicants and to their lawyers (i.e., I will beg USCIS to have mercy on us). (more…)
Back in 2019, the Trump Administration ended the long-standing practice of releasing data about our nation’s Asylum Offices. The Biden Administration has not seemed particularly eager to restore transparency, but now, a year and a half after President Biden took office, we finally have some new data from the Asylum Division. Mind you, the data is only current as of December 31, 2021, but we are told more information will be released soon. Since “soon” in asylum world tends to mean “not any time soon,” I’ve decided to write about the information we have now, rather than wait for a second data dump, which may or may not be released in the near future.
The new data gives us a lot to discuss and sheds some light on why cases are moving so slowly. It also raises questions about how the asylum system is working–or not working. (more…)
It’s common these days to find asylum seekers at the Asylum Office and in Immigration Court who filed their asylum application, form I-589, five, six, seven or more years ago. During that time, some information on the form becomes out of date. Also, new events occur which need to be added to the form. What is the best and most efficient way to update your asylum application at the Asylum Office and in court? (more…)
Though I haven’t seen any data to back this up, it seems to me that second interviews at the Asylum Office are becoming more common. I’ve been hearing reports about second (or third) interviews from others and we are seeing it in our own practice as well. In this post, we will talk about the second interview: Why is it needed? What happens at a second interview? How should you prepare? (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…)
In a recent editorial, the Washington Post opined that Congress’s failure to pass immigration reform has led to the ongoing crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border. But even without Congress, the Biden Administration can use its regulatory power to better define the term “refugee” and thus better control who is eligible to enter the United States under our asylum law. (more…)