Fixing Asylum Part 4: Immigration Court

by Jason Dzubow

There are currently over 1.2 million cases pending before our nation’s Immigration Courts (how many of these cases involve asylum, we do not know). The average wait time for a case is 849 days. What has caused this large backlog, and what can be done to alleviate the long waits in Immigration Court?

There are a number of reasons for the Immigration Court backlog. As with the Asylum Office, the basic reason is that there are too many cases and not enough Immigration Judges (“IJs”) and support staff. But a significant aggravating factor is what Judge Schmidt calls “aimless docket reshuffling” or ADR, which he defines as “arbitrarily or maliciously moving cases around without actually deciding them.” In other words, different Administrations have different priorities, and when Administrations change (or change their priorities), cases get moved around in ways that do not result in their completion, but do result in significant delay. The Obama Administration was responsible for its share of ADR, but the Trump Administration–with its decision to make every case a priority–has turned ADR into high art. Other aggravating factors include increased resources for enforcement without a commensurate increase for the Immigration Courts and a significant influx of asylum seekers from Central America that began in about 2012. One last factor is EOIR leadership (EOIR is the Executive Office for Immigration Review – the agency that oversees the Immigration Courts), which under the Trump Administration has been composed of partisan loyalists who lack the competencies needed to run a large organization.

(more…)

Continue reading

144 Comments

Fixing Asylum Part 3: The Asylum Office

by Jason Dzubow

According to the most recent data, as of “July 31, 2020, USCIS had 370,948 asylum applications, on behalf of 589,187 aliens, pending final adjudication.” “Over 94% of these pending applications [about 348,691 cases] are awaiting an interview by an asylum officer.” The remaining cases–approximately 22,257–have been interviewed and are waiting for a decision.

In terms of resources, the most recent information I could find is from May 2019. At that time, there were 763 Asylum Officers and 148 supervisory officers. While the majority of these staff members was devoted to interviewing affirmative asylum seekers, “over 200 officers” were assigned to conduct credible fear interviews at the border (a credible fear interview or CFI is an initial evaluation of asylum eligibility). Assuming everything remains the same (meaning that there are about 563 officers available for affirmative cases) and assuming each officer conducts eight interviews per week, it would take about 15 months to get through the entire backlog–if no new cases enter the system.

Realistically, though, new cases are continuously being filed, Asylum Officers probably can’t adjudicate eight cases per week for 52 weeks a year, and–given the mess at the Southern border and President Elect Biden’s plan to send more resources to that region–it is likely that many more than 200 officers will be assigned to CFIs (which will make them unavailable for “regular” affirmative asylum interviews). In short, even if the pandemic magically disappears, it seems unlikely that we can get through the backlog anytime soon. We are today facing the same problem that has dogged the asylum system since at least 2013: There are too many cases and not enough officers.

So what can be done?

Hire More Officers: One obvious solution is to hire more Asylum Officers. While the President Elect has not indicated whether or not he would hire more AOs, he has set forth an ambitious humanitarian agenda for the U.S.-Mexico border, and it seems impossible that he could fulfill that goal without hiring many more Asylum Officers. Of course, this would cost money, and it is unclear whether USCIS has the means to pay for more officers or whether Congress would be willing to increase the agency’s budget.

Even if there is no additional money available, there are steps Mr. Biden can take to improve the asylum system.  

More Efficient Scheduling and Shorter Interviews: The data I found (pre-pandemic) shows that roughly 8% of asylum applicants are “no shows” for their interviews and another 15% cancel their interviews (what percentage of these are rescheduled, I do not know). This makes sense, given the long gap between filing for asylum and attending an interview: People leave the U.S. or find other ways to obtain status here; others fail to update their address and so never receive notice of the interview. To mitigate this problem, Asylum Offices schedule more interviews than they have the capacity to conduct, with the expectation that some applicants will not appear. This seems to me a huge waste of energy. Why not call applicants a few weeks in advance to determine whether they intend to appear for their interview? This should be done after the interview notice is mailed out, and that notice should indicate that the applicant will receive a call from the Asylum Office. Applicants who fail to respond to the phone call can be rescheduled and sent a warning letter by mail. Those who still do not respond can then be referred directly to Immigration Court. Where possible, the calls and notices should be in the applicant’s native language.

There are other benefits to calling applicants prior to the interview: They can be reminded to submit all evidence in advance, and can be queried about what language they will speak at the interview. They can also be told to review the I-589 form and determine in advance what updates and corrections are needed. Better yet, the asylum interview notice can include a form to update the I-589, which is often submitted years before the interview. While not all applicants will be able to complete such a form on their own, many can, and this will save significant time at the interview.

Another way to save time at the interview would be to include a copy of the “bar” questions along with the interview notice. The “bar” questions determine whether a person is barred from receiving asylum (because they are criminals or terrorists, for example). Why not require applicants to review these questions ahead of time, and then certify at the interview that they read and understood each question? Most people will answer “no” to all the bar questions, and if the officer has specific concerns, she can raise those at the interview. Also, while we’re on the subject of bar questions, why do the officers need to ask these questions to children? I’ve seen officers question dependent children as young as three or four years old about whether they are terrorists. It’s just plain silly (though it can be entertaining). We would save a lot of time and trouble if parents could answer these questions for their minor children, or at least for children under a certain age–say 14 or 15.

LIFO vs. FIFO: Another issue related to scheduling is The Great LIFO-FIFO Debate–whether cases should be interviewed in the order received (first-in, first-out or FIFO) or whether the newest cases should receive priority (last-in, first-out or LIFO). All Asylum Offices are currently operating under the LIFO system. The logic is that interviewing new cases first will deter fraudulent asylum seekers, since they won’t be guaranteed a years-long wait for their interview (during which time they can live and work in the U.S.). The Asylum Division believes LIFO is working, as there was a 30% drop in new filings after it was implemented. However, I hope they will revisit this finding. My sense is that any decrease in filings was unrelated to the LIFO policy and instead came about for other reasons, such as fewer people arriving in the U.S. due to stricter visa requirements.

Also, from the perspective of asylum seekers, LIFO is very unfair. Old cases are given the lowest priority, meaning many people will (seemingly) never get to the front of the line. These applicants are facing severe hardships, including separation from family and endless uncertainty. At a minimum, a certain percentage of officers should be assigned to work on backlog cases, starting with the oldest. Better yet, we should return to FIFO and the Asylum Office Scheduling Bulletin, so we will have a more orderly and predictable process for scheduling interviews.

Create Rules for Expediting: One final point about scheduling interviews: We need a more formal system for expediting cases. Currently, it is possible to expedite, but there really are no rules about who is eligible to expedite or about what constitutes a valid reason to expedite. The predictable result is that many people try to expedite, which wastes Asylum Office staff time and also makes it more difficult for the most needy people to expedite their cases. There should be a national policy with publicized criteria about who is eligible for expedition. In my person opinion, the first priority should be people who are separated from their family members, especially minor children. For me, a distant second is a person with a documented mental or physical health issue. Until the Asylum Offices can expedite all the people in these two categories, I see no reason to allow for any other category of applicant to request expedited processing.

Premium Processing: A more radical idea to address the backlog–and one that I’ve been pushing for a while now–is premium processing for asylum seekers. Premium processing already exists for several USCIS forms, and allows an applicant to pay an additional fee (currently between $1,500 and $2,500) for faster processing of her case. Affirmative asylum seekers–in contrast to refugees–have paid their own way to the United States, and so presumably, many of them could afford an additional fee for premium processing. Also, while the idea of asylum seekers paying for their cases may seem unpalatable, the Trump Administration has already implemented a non-waivable $50 fee for all asylum applicants (as of now, that fee has been blocked by a federal court), and so the taboo of paying for humanitarian protection has already been broken. Thus, as I see it, there is no valid objection to implementing premium processing for asylum seekers, and–given the overwhelming humanitarian need–it is a solution whose time has come.

How would premium processing help? For those who pay, their cases would be interviewed more quickly. How quickly, I do not know, but premium processing for other USCIS forms is currently 15 days. I doubt that time frame would be realistic for an asylum case, but perhaps 60 or 90 days would be achievable. Even those who cannot pay would benefit, as the infusion of money into the system would benefit all applicants. An added benefit from the government’s viewpoint would be that faster processing would–if we accept the LIFO logic–help discourage fraudulent applications. So premium processing is a win all around: For the applicants who pay, for those who do not pay, and for the U.S. government.

Eliminate the Asylum Office: A final idea–perhaps the most radical of all–is to eliminate the Asylum Office altogether, at least for most cases. Under the current system, an applicant files an asylum case, and if he loses, his case is usually referred to Immigration Court where an Immigration Judge reviews the case de novo and issues a brand new decision. As an advocate, I am grateful for a second chance to present my clients’ cases. But in terms of “the system,” this type of redundancy is not very efficient. One solution might be to shift all asylum cases where the applicant is out-of-status to the Immigration Court. Or maybe just leave vulnerable applicants–such as minors–at the Asylum Office. While this idea has been floating around for years, it is still unclear whether it would result in more or less efficiency. In any event, given the current mess, nothing should be off the table, and the idea of (mostly) eliminating the Asylum Office might warrant further study.

For the sake of asylum seekers and their families, and for the integrity of our humanitarian immigration system, we need major changes to the affirmative asylum system. Perhaps some of these ideas can contribute to that effort.

Continue reading

166 Comments

Fixing Asylum Part 2: USCIS Forms

by Jason Dzubow

Here’s a point that should be self-evidence, but isn’t: Bureaucracy exists to facilitate the implementation of the law. Congress passes a law, and then government agencies create a system of policies and procedures to put that law into effect. In principle, this system should be easy to use and efficient, and should allow people to obtain the benefits to which they are entitled. In other words, it should be the exact opposite of what we have with the USCIS.

There are many problems with the agency that adjudicates immigration benefits (including asylum), but here, I want to focus on one particular area of concern: USCIS forms. USCIS forms are poorly designed, confusing, inconsistent, culturally insensitive, and inefficient. Here, we’ll discuss these problems in a bit more detail, and I will make some suggestions for improvement.

Let’s start with the most basic question on every USCIS form–the applicant’s name. Almost every form has boxes for an applicant’s first, middle, and last name. The problem is that naming convention vary widely, depending on where you are from. Many cultures do not have a first-middle-last name format, and so the USCIS question does not make much sense. One solution might be to ask the question in a more specific way: “Write your name as it appears on your passport.” Of course, not everyone has a passport, so maybe a second question can ask: “Write your name as it appears on your birth certificate or other government-issued identity document.” In addition to these iterations, the name question would also need to ask about “all other names used” (as many USCIS forms currently do). The confusion surrounding this very basic question–What is your name?–illustrates the difficultly of creating one-size-fits-all forms.

Form a forum for reforming forms.

Another problem arises with regard to addresses and places of employment. One issue here is that address formats vary widely by country, and the forms generally only allow for addresses in the format that we use in the United States. Another issue is that different forms request address and employment histories in different ways. So for example, the I-589 form (application for asylum) allows you to list one address or one job per line, so that your address and job histories fit onto one page (with room to spare). The I-485 (application for permanent residency), by contrast, requires this information in a different format, so that less information takes up much more space. The N-400 (application for citizenship) requests the same information in a third format. Maybe this is a minor quibble, but the inconsistencies between the various forms is confusing, and it is not confined only to the applicant’s address and work histories.

One area where inter-form differences sometimes create problems is the issue of arrest history. Different forms ask about this in different ways. Sometimes, USCIS wants information about all arrests. Other times, they want only information about criminal arrests or convictions. In some questions, USCIS wants to know about arrests anywhere in the world; other times, they want only arrests that occurred in the United States. Indeed, if you look at the main forms a successful asylum applicant will complete over the course of their time with USCIS, there are probably dozens of questions about criminal activity, and those questions are inconsistent between forms, and–in many cases–confusing, even for someone trained in the law.

Speaking of confusing questions, if you look at the lists of questions on the I-485 and the N-400, you will see scores of yes/no questions about all sorts of activities. Some of these questions are not amenable to a yes-or-no answer. Others (many others) are poorly written and difficult to understand. In many cases, the two forms ask similar questions using different language. All this can easily trip up an applicant and can lead to unintentional inconsistencies where there really are none.

Another problem is the large number of yes-or-no questions on many forms (the I-485, for example, has over 100 yes/no questions). These questions relate to everything from criminal and immigration violations, to national security, to persecution of others, to membership in totalitarian political parties, to prostitution and illegal gambling. Most people check almost all the boxes “no,” but periodically, they may need to check “yes.” Given the vast number of questions, the fact that almost all are “no,” and the fact that many of the questions are confusing, it is easy to slip up and miss a “yes” answer. This can lead to big trouble, including having your application denied.

These examples represent just a few of the problems with USCIS forms, and every immigration lawyer can cite many more. The short answer is that all USCIS forms need a major overhaul. This should be done with an eye towards making the forms shorter (the I-485 and the N-400 are each 20 pages long). The forms should be made consistent with each other in terms of format and the substance of questions asked. They should accommodate different naming and address conventions.

Also, USCIS needs to do something about the overwhelming number of yes/no questions. There are too many questions, many are difficult to understand or redundant (or both), and many are irrelevant (do we really need three questions about Nazi activity between 1933 and 1945?). The number of questions should be reduced and the questions themselves should be simplified so that you don’t need a law degree to understand what the heck USCIS is asking about.

One final point on forms: Why are we still printing forms and mailing paper copies to the agency (to a plethora of different mailing addresses)? A limited number of forms can be filed online, and USCIS should expand e-filing, so that all forms and evidence can be filed online. E-filing would also solve the problem of USCIS rejecting forms for simple mistakes or for not writing “N/A” in every empty box. 

To reform its forms, USCIS needs help. It needs to hear from immigration advocates, immigrants, and other stakeholders. Forms should be more understandable and more able to accommodate cultural differences. Questions should be standardized across different forms, and the format of the forms should be made more consistent. All forms should be available for online filing. 

Improving USCIS forms is long overdue. Fixing the forms will make USCIS more efficient, and will ultimately save everyone time, trouble, and money. The purpose of USCIS forms is to facilitate the application process and to help USCIS determine who is–and is not–eligible for an immigration benefit. More efficient forms will help move USCIS towards these goals.

Continue reading

104 Comments

Attention Asylum Seekers! File Your Case Before January 11, 2021

by Jason Dzubow

This post is by Lindsay M. Harris, asylum attorney extraordinaire–

Over the summer, the U.S. government proposed a set of regulations that will dramatically change asylum law. In response, the general public and immigrant advocates submitted close to 90,000 public comments. After receiving the comments, the government changed some of the proposed rules (slightly), but the new rules are set to go into effect on January 11, 2021.

There will likely be legal challenges (lawsuits) to try to stop these regulations from going into effect. But, it’s always hard to tell what will happen. For that reason, if you plan to file for asylum, it is best to do so before January 11, when the new rules go into effect.

President Trump’s parting gift to the asylum system.

One of the changes made between July 15, 2020 (the proposed rule) and December 2020 (the final rule) is that the new rules will not be retroactive. This means that they will not apply to anyone who has filed their I-589 application for asylum before January 11, 2021. The government has stated that the new rules will apply now, despite any legal challenges to any sections that the government views as simply codifying existing case law–

Although the rulemaking itself is not retroactive, nothing in the rule precludes adjudicators from applying existing authority codified by the rule to pending cases, independent of the prospective application of the rule. Accordingly, the statutory authority and case law incorporated into the rule, as reflected in both the [notice of proposed rulemaking] and the final rule, would continue to apply if the rule itself does not go into effect as scheduled.

Regardless of retroactivity issues, it is likely much better for asylum seekers to have their applications filed prior to January 11, 2021. This is especially true for people fleeing harm from non-government actors, for asylum seekers fleeing gender-based harm, and for individuals who have spent time in another country before coming to the United States.

If you are seeking asylum, please consult with an immigration attorney as soon as possible. An I-589 asylum application takes hours to properly fill out, and you will need to have time to work with an attorney to prepare your application and get it mailed before January 11, 2021.

If you are an asylum seeker in need of assistance, please contact Lindsay.Harris@udc.edu, Vice-Chair of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s National Asylum & Refugee Committee and Associate Professor and Director of the Immigration & Human Rights Clinic at the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law.

Continue reading

73 Comments

Fixing Asylum Part 1: Politics

by Jason Dzubow

The President and his allies are doing everything in their power to subvert the result of last month’s election. So far, their efforts have not changed the outcome, but we are still in a very dangerous place. Hopefully, the system and our country will withstand this unprecedented assault on democracy and the rule of law. If so, and if Joe Biden assumes office in January, he will face a number of daunting challenges: The pandemic and healthcare, the economy, climate change, divisiveness and decaying faith in democracy, racial justice, and immigration reform, to name the most obvious. How much attention immigration–and specifically asylum–will receive in this mix remains to be seen.

Prior to the election, the Democratic Party and the Biden campaign set forth their proposals for immigration reform, which are quite sweeping. Many of Mr. Biden’s ideas can only be enacted with the cooperation of Congress. Others could be put into effect without Congressional action, just as President Trump implemented his immigration agenda through agency rulemaking and executive orders.

A minority of the immigration policy changes proposed by Mr. Biden relate specifically to asylum, and most of these concern asylum seekers at the Southern border. This is not surprising, as the border is a disaster, but my concern is that applicants at the Asylum Office and in Immigration Court–which together represent close to two million people–will be overlooked.

Kudos for Biden; Coup Don’ts for Trump.

In this series of posts, I hope to set forth my ideas for reforming and improving our nation’s asylum system.

Before we discuss substance, however, I want to talk politics, since any reform will take place in the context of the current political crisis where, even in the best case, millions of Americans will view Mr. Biden’s Administration as illegitimate and where many Republican leaders will be vying to outdo each other in obstructing the new President’s agenda. The divisive political climate will potentially limit Mr. Biden’s ability to make changes, and in turn, any changes he manages to implement could lead to further division. This begs the question: Should the new Administration follow the Trump game plan, and do all within its power to achieve its goals? Or is it better to focus on areas of bipartisan agreement (if any can be found)?

I’m of two minds about this dilemma. On the one hand, non-citizens in our country have been treated unfairly and cruelly. They have been lied about (and to), terrorized, exploited, and in many cases, forced to wait for years for status to which they are legally entitled. Also, when President Obama tried to take a middle road on immigration (remember when he was referred to as the “Deporter-in-Chief”?), it did nothing to move the other side towards compromise. Perhaps that’s because there is a stark partisan divide over illegal immigration: Only 23% of Democrats view it as a “big problem,” while 67% of Republicans see it that way. So if compromise is impossible, maybe the Biden Administration’s better approach is to implement whatever reforms it can manage regardless of the political consequences.

On the other hand, what is most needed now is to try to heal the divisions in our nation. Pushing through partisan immigration reforms (legislatively or administratively) will likely exacerbate the divide. Further, if President Biden overplays his hand on immigration, it could result in a backlash that advantages Republicans and other immigration restrictionists. Of course, the same predicament exists for other issues–like climate change–and the idea of waiting for a broader consensus when action is needed imminently makes little sense. Immigrants and asylum seekers urgently need relief and protection. So while ideally I believe it would be best to reach out to moderate Republicans and to continue working to educate the public about immigration, I also believe that we need to start enacting changes immediately.

That said, I think the Biden Administration needs to move with caution. Some immigration issues–such as DACA and (surprisingly) refugee resettlement–have broader bipartisan support than others, such as border security and deporting people who are here illegally. Certainly, the new Administration can focus on areas where it will encounter less resistance and face fewer negative repercussions.

The proposals I will make in this series fall, I think, on the more bipartisan side of the spectrum. I plan to discuss ideas for improving efficiency and fairness at the Asylum Office, the Immigration Court, and at USCIS.

In contrast to Mr. Biden’s pre-election policy agenda, my focus in this series will not be the Southern border. Protecting asylum seekers at the border is a more divisive issue than most other areas of immigration law, and I believe that advocates and policy-makers need to lay a political foundation before enacting successful change there. I’ve written about this in more detail before, but unless we build a more bipartisan consensus about who is eligible for asylum, we risk a severe backlash by easing restrictions at the Southern border. Indeed, one could argue that President Trump was elected largely as a reaction against perceived porous borders.

While the politics of border reform is a crucial concern, the situation along the U.S.-Mexico border is clearly untenable–people are dying and something needs to be done. How the Biden Administration will navigate that political minefield, I do not know, but I worry that the political capital required for improving conditions at the border will make it more difficult to enact needed changes in other, less politically-charged regions of the immigration system, such as USCIS, the Asylum Office, and the Immigration Court. In any event, those three areas will be the subject of the next several posts on this blog.

President Trump’s (hoped for) departure will open up some space to improve the situation for non-citizens: By reversing many of his Administration’s damaging immigration policies, but also–hopefully–by bringing long-needed improvements to the immigration system. The trick will be to balance that change with the current political realities, to minimize the inevitable counter-reaction, and to avoid doing further damage to the cohesion of our nation. 

Continue reading

89 Comments

How Much More Damage Can the Trump Administration Do?

by Jason Dzubow

Joe Biden has won the popular vote and the majority of the electoral college vote. Whether he will be sworn in as the 46th President of the United States, however, remains to be seen. In yet another break with precedent and an attack on our democracy, President Trump has refused to concede and claims that the election was plagued by widespread fraud. He made the same claim in 2016, and even created a commission, chaired by Vice President Mike Pence and anti-immigrant crusader Kris Kobach. That commission quietly shut down after failing to discover any significant evidence of fraud, and so far, there is no evidence of wrongdoing in the current election. Nevertheless, when we have a President who has repeatedly demonstrated his contempt for the rule of law and for reality itself, the peaceful transition of power in no longer a given.

And what’s worse than the President are those who support and enable him. We already know that many Republicans care more about winning than about democracy. Exhibit A in that regard is the Supreme Court nomination process. Senate Republicans blocked Merrick Garland from even receiving a hearing during the last year of President Obama’s term. The claim was that since an election was upcoming, “the people” should decide who gets to fill the vacant seat on the high court. Four years later, the same Senate Republicans rushed through the confirmation of a Justice they supported ideologically, Amy Coney Barrett, in the days before the 2020 election. This action laid bare the utter contempt Republicans have for fairness and for those who disagree with them. In my view, democracy simply cannot exist in such an atmosphere.

This election is like a bad horror movie. We’ve reached the point where the hero seems to have won, but there’s still 20 minutes left to go. Or in our case, 70 days.

Now, the stakes are even higher. Are Republicans just indulging their base and Mr. Trump? Or do they expect something to come of their challenges? And if the results of the election are somehow overturned or subverted, what then? I fear that democracy cannot survive such a moment.

And how does all this affect asylum seekers and immigrants? Even assuming the Trump Administration leaves peacefully, what can it do during the remaining 70-some days before Mr. Biden takes office? Can it make changes that outlast the Trump Presidency and are difficult for Mr. Biden to reverse?

One thing we are seeing is the continuing flurry of new regulations and other actions aimed at making it more difficult to obtain asylum or other legal status in the U.S. Probably the most significant recent action is the refugee cap for FY2021, which further reduces the number of refugees our country will admit for resettlement. For much of the Obama Administration, our country resettled about 85,000 refugees per year. During Mr. Obama’s last year in office, the U.S. resettled about 110,000 refugees. For FY2021 (which began on September 30, 2020), our country will resettle a maximum of 15,000 refugees–the lowest number in the modern history of our refugee program.

In another recent action, on November 5, the Attorney General issued a decision making clear that there is no “duress exception” to the persecutor bar. What this means is that if a person is forced to engage in “persecution” (for example, by serving as a prison guard) under duress, she cannot qualify for asylum. Also, the evidentiary burden for the government has been reduced so that if evidence exists indicating the persecutor bar “may” apply, the asylum applicant must demonstrate that the bar does not apply. Under this strange standard, many asylum applicants could be subject to the bar. Imagine a person who was forcefully conscripted into the Syrian army, an army which commits human rights violations. Even when there is no evidence that this person engaged in any persecutory conduct, he must present evidence that the persecutor bar does not apply. Whether this will block many people from obtaining asylum, I am not sure, but it could. At a minimum, the new decision will make it more burdensome for applicants to present their asylum claims.

The ongoing rule-making is part of a four-year effort to restrict asylum and immigration. Many policies have gone into effect; others have been blocked by courts or are subject to ongoing legal challenges. For example, the Trump Administration increased the wait time for asylum-pending work permits from 150 days to one year, it implemented the “public charge rule” making it more difficult to obtain a Green Card, it narrowed the basis for obtaining asylum for victims of domestic violence and gang violence, it created the Migrant Protection Protocols, which forced thousands of asylum seekers to wait in Mexico in unsafe conditions, it issued restrictions on asylum for people who passed through third countries or countries affected by the coronavirus, it implemented the Muslim travel ban, etc., etc. Whether any more new rules or decisions will be issued in the next few months, we do not know, but it certainly would not be surprising.

One thing the Trump Administration has failed to do is change the immigration law itself. That requires an act of Congress, and even though Republicans controlled both Houses in 2017 and 2018, the President failed to introduce legislation related to immigration or asylum. As a result, all of the changes we’ve seen over the past four years have been regulatory. This means that a new President would have the power to reverse those changes, though those efforts could be blocked by a court if they are found to be “arbitrary and capricious” (as the Trump Administration repeatedly found out).

President Elect Biden has laid out an ambitious immigration agenda and has pledged to reverse many of Mr. Trump’s immigration rules. However, given that the Senate will likely remain in Republican hands, some of his ideas may prove impossible to implement. Others may come up against hard political realities–I wonder, for example, what to do about the thousands of migrants stranded at the U.S./Mexico border. Something needs to be done, but throwing open the gates seems politically risky and could result in a severe backlash (in the 2022 election, for example). It would be far better to come up with bipartisan solutions to these problems, but unfortunately, it seems unlikely that the GOP will play ball.

In any event, Mr. Biden can accomplish nothing until he is sworn in, and as far as I can tell, that is not yet a certainty. I know I tend to be pessimistic, and I hope that I am wrong, but from what I can tell, our country is at the most precarious and dangerous point that we have seen since the Civil War. To get past this moment, our leaders need to put the good of the nation before their own self interest and their own partisan loyalties. I suppose there is a first time for everything.

Continue reading

137 Comments

Whatever the Election Results, There Is Work to Be Done

by Jason Dzubow

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.

Continue reading

108 Comments

New Bars to Asylum for Criminals and Almost Criminals

by Jason Dzubow

In the ongoing saga of the Trump Administration’s efforts to dismantle our humanitarian immigration law, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security published a new rule imposing mandatory bars that prevent “convicted felons, drunk drivers, gang members, and other criminal aliens from receiving asylum.” The Trump Administration has not changed the law related to asylum–that would take an act of Congress signed by the President–and even when they controlled the Senate and the House in 2017 and 2018, Republicans did not attempt to modify the law. Instead, the Administration has been attacking asylum through regulatory and bureaucratic changes, many of which have been challenged in court.

This latest change is designed to block certain convicted and suspected criminals from receiving asylum. What’s wrong with that? Why should we grant refuge to criminals? I must admit that in the abstract, I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for asylum seekers with criminal records. They are asking for an immigration benefit after having violated our country’s law. However, when you actually meet non-citizens with criminal records and understand their circumstances, it is often more difficult to hold this view. Nevertheless, I suppose this new rule will be less controversial than others implemented by the Trump Administration, since it targets (supposed) criminals.

Before President Trump saved us, we were being overrun by criminals.

That said, there are a number of reasons why this new rule is bad. First, the Immigration and Nationality Act already bars asylum for many people with criminal convictions (and some who have been accused but not convicted). Those who are not barred under the old rules can still be denied asylum as a matter of discretion on a case-by-case basis, and few people with anything resembling a serious criminal conviction get asylum. So as usual with the Trump Administration’s rule making, this new regulation is a solution in search of a problem.

Second, some asylum seekers will be barred for committing a domestic violence offense even without a conviction. For cases in family court, it is sometimes necessary to admit guilt and enter a rehabilitation program in order to (for example) regain custody of your children. I worked on such cases early in my career, and I observed that people who adamantly claimed innocence would be forced to admit guilt if they wanted to reunite with their family. This is of particular concern for low income individuals, who are more likely to face government intervention in their lives. And so relaxing the rules about convictions will probably result in innocent people being barred from asylum.

Third, and on a related note, this new rule will have unintended “up stream” consequences for non-citizens in criminal or domestic court. They will now have a stronger incentive to fight their case and try to avoid any adjudication of guilt. This could result in people with minor issues (such as a second DUI or a minor domestic violence incident) failing to get the help they need, since obtaining assistance requires an admission of culpability. Thus, it will be more difficult to reach a good outcome in cases that would normally be amenable to positive government intervention.

Fourth, some of the criminal conduct targeted by the new rule is very minor–for example, the misdemeanor use of a false ID. Some asylum seekers use fake documents to flee persecution and enter the U.S. Others use fake IDs to work (and eat). Blocking such people from asylum is an unfairly harsh consequence for a relatively small infraction.

Finally, the new rule bars certain people from asylum if they are convicted of illegally re-entering the U.S. or for alien smuggling (and alien smuggling can be interpreted very broadly–for example, a person who enters the U.S. illegally and who helps a non-relative enter at the same time could be convicted of alien smuggling). Thus, the rule potentially prevents people from seeking asylum for fleeing persecution and coming to the United States.

Let’s turn to the new rule itself. One important point is that this rule is not retroactive. Meaning that if you have an old conviction, it does not bar you from asylum. However, if you are convicted after the rule goes into effect–November 20, 2020, unless blocked by a court–then you would be barred. So if you are arrested for a crime prior to November 20, 2020, but convicted on or after that date, you are barred from asylum. The new bars apply to aliens who are convicted of–

(1) A felony under federal or state law;

(2) An offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A) or § 1324(a)(1)(2) (Alien Smuggling or Harboring);

(3) An offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (Illegal Reentry);

(4) A federal, state, tribal, or local crime involving criminal street gang activity;

(5) Certain federal, state, tribal, or local offenses concerning the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant if the impaired driving caused serious injury or death, or if the offense was a second or subsequent DUI offense;

(6) A federal, state, tribal, or local domestic violence offense, or who are found by an adjudicator to have engaged in acts of battery or extreme cruelty in a domestic context, even if no conviction resulted; and

(7) Certain misdemeanors under federal or state law for offenses related to false identification; the unlawful receipt of public benefits from a federal, state, tribal, or local entity; or the possession or trafficking of a controlled substance or controlled-substance paraphernalia.

The new rule also makes it more difficult to modify or overturn a prior conviction in order to mitigate the immigration consequences of a crime. The rule specifically indicates that convictions altered for immigration purposes do not allow the applicant to avoid any bars to asylum. It has never been easy to reopen a criminal case and change a conviction, but some non-citizens have successfully used that approach to avoid the immigration consequences of their crimes. Under the new rule, that practice–already quite limited–will become nearly impossible. 

The point to take from all this is pretty simple: If you are an asylum seeker, do not commit any crimes. The repercussions for even a small infraction can be severe. If you are arrested and charged with a crime (no matter how minor), or if you have a case in domestic or family court, you need to speak with a lawyer who is familiar with the immigration consequences of the charges against you. 

To me, this new rule is redundant and unnecessary. Asylum seekers are often people who have had traumatic experiences, and sometimes those experience manifest in conduct that gets them into trouble. The old rule–which blocked most criminals but allowed for case-by-case adjudication in certain instances–was more fair, and enabled the fact-finder to consider all the relevant circumstances in an asylum applicant’s case. But when it comes to asylum seekers, the Trump Administration is not interested in fairness. Perhaps the courts will see fit to block this new rule, but to me, that seems doubtful. The vast majority of asylum seekers do not commit crimes, and under this new rule, it is imperative for anyone who needs asylum to keep it that way. 

Continue reading

110 Comments

Expert Reports in Asylum Cases

by Jason Dzubow

In order to win an asylum case, you have to prove that there is a reasonably possibility you will face harm in your home country. To do this, you need evidence. Evidence about any past harm, evidence of threats against you, evidence of country conditions, etc. One piece of evidence that can be helpful is a report from an expert witness. Here, we’ll discuss the different types of expert reports and how they can help your case.

First, let’s briefly examine the difference between a fact witness and an expert witness. A fact witness is someone who knows about some aspect of your case. For example, maybe your cousin saw the police arrest you from a political rally. Your cousin knows about one piece of your story, and she can write a letter explaining what she knows. She is a fact witness. An expert witness usually does not have any first-hand knowledge of your case. Rather, according to the Federal Rules of Evidence, an expert is someone with “with scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge” who can “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” For example, if you are a member of a small ethnic group that is persecuted by your home government, you might find a professor who has studied your group and who can write a report explaining how the government treats members of your ethnic group. The professor is an expert witness.

In terms of admitting expert testimony, the Federal Rules of Evidence are not binding in Immigration Court or at the Asylum Office, but they do provide useful guidance. To be admissible under the Federal Rules, expert testimony must meet three criteria: (1) It must be relevant, meaning it will “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;” (2) The expert witness must be “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education;” and (3) The expert’s testimony must be reliable, in that it “is based upon sufficient facts or data… is the product of reliable principles and methods, and [the expert] witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.” The standard for admitting evidence in immigration proceedings is more liberal: The “sole test for admission of evidence is whether the evidence is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair.” Nevertheless, by following the guidance from the Federal Rules, you can help ensure that any expert testimony is given maximum credence by the fact finder.

The standard uniform for an expert witness.

Expert testimony is usually submitted in writing, in the form of an expert report. Accompanying the report is the expert’s CV or a statement of qualifications. It is also helpful to list instances where the expert has previously been recognized as an expert witness by other courts. Experts witnesses sometimes come to court to testify (or testify by telephone).

Expert testimony can be used to support different aspects of an asylum claim. Probably the most common expert report we use is a forensic medical or dental exam. In these reports, the doctor or dentist examines an asylum applicant’s injury to determine whether that injury is consistent with the applicant’s description of what happened. For example, we once had a client who was stabbed in the arm by members of the Taliban. He had a large scar running the length of his forearm. Of course, no medical expert can determine whether the injury was caused by the Taliban. But the expert can opine about whether the scar is consistent with a knife wound. Some experts can also discuss the approximate age of a scar based on its appearance. To create a report, the client would normally need to appear for an in-person examination and give a written description of the incident to the doctor. For this reason, we try to complete the client’s affidavit (or at least the relevant portion of the affidavit) before he goes to see the doctor. That way, he has a description of the incident to bring with him to the exam.

A subset of the forensic medical exams is an evaluation of female genital mutilation/cutting (“FGM/C”). Victims of FGM/C are often able to obtain asylum, and such exams are crucial to these cases. The World Health Organization has categorized FGM/C, and it is helpful for the doctor to explain what category the client’s FGM/C fits into.

Another common type of report that we see are mental health evaluations. These are created by psychologists or other mental health professionals to evaluate the psychological harm (such as post traumatic stress disorder) caused by persecution or the threat of persecution. Sometimes, these reports are generated during the course of treatment; other times, the client visits the mental health professional one or two times and obtains an evaluation for purposes of the asylum case. I tend to prefer the reports created by a treating professional, but in many cases, asylum applicants do not have access to health insurance and cannot afford treatment. In such cases, it may be possible to obtain a pro bono evaluation, which the client can use to bolster her asylum claim. We also use these reports to try to expedite asylum cases. For example, if the report indicates that the applicant’s mental health is being harmed by the long wait, we can sometimes convince the Asylum Office or the court to expedite the person’s case.

Country condition experts can also assist with asylum cases. In my own practice, I use such experts only rarely, as most of the information we need can be found on-line in human rights reports or news articles. However, in specialized situations, a country condition expert can be critical. For instance, an expert can help establish that a person belongs to a particular social group by showing that the society in question recognizes that social group as a distinct entity. Another example is where an expert is needed to interpret a foreign law, such as whether an adoption is legally valid.  

In short, there are many ways that experts can help bolster an asylum case. A good starting point for identifying experts and utilizing them effectively is the asylum expert handbook created by Professor Deborah M. Weissman and her students at UNC Chapel Hill Law School. Other helpful resources include the expert data base at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at UC Hastings Law School and the country condition expert list from the Rights in Exile Programme. Some experts on these lists work pro bono; others charge a fee.

Not all asylum cases need testimony from an expert witness (indeed, most of my own cases do not), but where it is needed, it can make the difference between a denial and a grant. 

Continue reading

111 Comments

A New Rule for Interpreters at the Asylum Office (+ an Update on the Backlog)

by Jason Dzubow

Last week, USCIS announced a new rule for interpreters at Asylum Office interviews. Starting immediately, most asylum applicants should not bring their own interpreter to the interview, as had been the practice up until now. Instead, USCIS will provide an interpreter by telephone for most languages. The reason for the change is, of course, the coronavirus pandemic. This new rule will be in effect until at least March 22, 2021.

There are a few interesting tidbits contained in the rule’s preface, and here, I want to discuss those, as well as the effect of the new rule, plus some tips on working with telephonic interpreters.

One tidbit is statistical. To justify the new rule, USCIS cites some numbers indicating how serious the pandemic is. As of July 31, 2020, “there were approximately 17,106,007 cases of COVID-19 globally, resulting in approximately 668,910 deaths; approximately 4,405,932 cases have been identified in the United States, with new cases being reported daily, and approximately 150,283 reported deaths due to the disease.” This grim assessment by the U.S. government itself seems largely at odds with the picture painted by President Trump, who has pretty consistently underplayed the severity of the pandemic (at least in public, if not to Bob Woodward).

When using a telephonic interpreter, be sure to speak loudly into the phone.

Another interesting tidbit relates to the affirmative asylum backlog. Since the advent of the Trump Administration, the Asylum Office has become more tight lipped about its data, and so we receive fewer updates about the backlog (or anything else). But according to the new rule, as of “July 31, 2020, USCIS had 370,948 asylum applications, on behalf of 589,187 aliens, pending final adjudication.” “Over 94% of these pending applications are awaiting an interview by an asylum officer.” This means that as of July 31, the current affirmative asylum backlog was about 348,691 cases (meaning 348,691 cases were filed but not yet interviewed). Contrast this with the last time USCIS posted statistical information about asylum cases, which was for the period ending on September 30, 2019. At that time, the backlog stood at 339,836 cases. If all this data is correct (and I am never completely confident in the information we receive from USCIS these days), the backlog has grown by about 9,000 cases between October 1, 2019 and July 31, 2020.

If we believe these numbers, this means that the backlog grew faster in FY2019 than it did in FY2020. This may or may not be surprising, depending on your perspective. On the one hand, given that so few cases are being interviewed this year thanks to the pandemic, we might have expected the backlog to have grown more quickly. On the other hand, given that fewer asylum seekers are making it to the U.S., we might have expected the backlog to grow more slowly.

Finally, with regard to statistics, USCIS’s numbers indicate that 22,257 cases have been interviewed and are awaiting a decision. This seems like a lot to me, especially since Asylum Officers are interviewing fewer people because of the pandemic, and you’d think they’d have more time to finish cases that have already been interviewed.

Turning to the new rule itself, basically it means that when you go to an asylum interview, the government will provide you with a contract interpreter, who will attend the interview by phone. According to the new rule, “contract interpreters are carefully vetted and tested [and they] pass rigorous background checks as well as meet a high standard of competency.” In my experience, the contract interpreters are quite good, and I have never had a case where an interpreter caused a major problem. Prior to the new rule (and the coronavirus), applicants were required to bring their own interpreter, who assisted in person, while the contract interpreter monitored the interview by phone. Now, you are not allowed to bring your own interpreter, and you must use the telephonic interpreter.

Not all languages are covered by the new rule, but many are. USCIS contract interpreters are available for 47 languages. If your language is not on the list, you must bring your own interpreter.

If a contract interpreter is not available, the interview will be rescheduled and the delay will be attributed to USCIS for Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”) purposes (meaning that the Asylum Clock will not stop). On the flip side, if the applicant refuses to proceed with a USCIS contract interpreter, the Clock will stop, which will delay the EAD.

The new rule raises a few concerns. Probably the primary concern is whether asylum applicants will be comfortable with their interpreters. Will a woman who has been the victim of gender-based violence be comfortable if her interpreter is a man? I have heard anecdotally (and I believe it) that Asylum Officers are sensitive to this issue, and will check with the applicant before starting the interview. Also, if you prefer a male or female interpreter, you might ask in advance by emailing the Asylum Office before your interview. My sense is that the Asylum Office will do its best to accommodate such requests.

Another concern is that telephonic interpreters cannot as easily understand the applicant (or the Asylum Officer) and may not be able to convey emotion or nuance as well as they might if they were present in person. While I suspect that this is true, I think it is unlikely that missing such subtleties will make a difference in the outcome. Also, given the pandemic and the need for social distancing, it seems to me that we all need to make some adjustments.

All that said, how can you best work with a telephonic interpreter? Here are a few tips from a star interpreter, who has herself performed telephonic interpretations–

  • Keep your voice loud and clear. While this is important when working with on-site interpreters, it is even more important over the phone.
  • If you have a long statement, pause after a sentence or two so the interpreter can translate your words. After the interpreter is done, continue your response.
  • Don’t shuffle papers as you speak; you might as well stop talking because the interpreter will not be able to hear you.
  • Try not to talk over other people. The interpreter can only translate for one person at a time. Over the phone, it will be impossible for the interpreter to understand what is being said if people talk over each other. This could result in a statement by the applicant going unheard by the Asylum Officer–with potentially disastrous consequences.
  • Wait for the interpreter to finish interpreting before making another statement or asking a question.
  • If you don’t hear or can’t understand the interpreter, speak up!

All good advice to keep in mind at your interview.

Overall, my sense is that this new rule is reasonable and will hopefully allow more applicants to start attending interviews, while keeping everyone as safe as possible. 

Tip o’ the fedora to Professor Lindsay M. Harris, Director of the Immigration & Human Rights Clinic at the University of the District of Columbia, and interpreter extraordinaire Maria Raquel McFadden, for their contributions to this article.

Continue reading

91 Comments

The War Over Work Permits

by Jason Dzubow

These days, it takes approximately forever to complete an asylum case. Because of the long wait, the law allows asylum seekers to apply for an Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”), which lets them work lawfully while the case is pending. In one of its many regulatory attacks on the asylum system, the Trump Administration recently implemented new rules making it more difficult to get an EAD. But those rules have been challenged in court. Let’s take a look at the law, the old rules, the new rules, where things stand now, and–most importantly–how asylum seekers might still qualify for an EAD.

As usual, it’s best to start with the law. In this case, INA § 208(d)(2), which provides–

An applicant for asylum is not entitled to employment authorization, but such authorization may be provided under regulation by the Attorney General. An applicant who is not otherwise eligible for employment authorization shall not be granted such authorization prior to 180 days after the date of filing of the application for asylum.

What this gobbledygook means is that asylum applicants are not entitled to an EAD, but government agencies can make rules allowing asylum seekers to get EADs. However, the soonest an asylum seeker can obtain an EAD is 180 days after he files for asylum.

Introducing the new EAD application process.

Based on this law, a government agency (the U.S. Department of Justice) created regulations that allowed asylum seekers to apply for an EAD 150 days after their asylum application was filed. Why 150 and not 180? Because the DOJ figured (optimistically) that it would take at least 30 days to process the EAD application, and so if the applicant files after 150 days, the EAD would not be issued until at least 180 days had passed. The regulations also provide that any delay caused by the applicant “shall not be counted” towards the 180 days. This is the origin of the dreaded Asylum Clock, which tracks how much time has passed since an applicant filed for asylum (and which has a tendency to behave in arbitrary ways, much to the chagrin of asylum seekers and their attorneys). So if an asylum applicant causes a delay–by rescheduling her interview, for example–the Clock would stop until the period of delay ends (in this example, the period of delay would end when the applicant attends her interview). These rules have remained largely unchanged for the past 25 years, until August 25, 2020, when new regulations went into effect.

The new rules make a number of major changes to the way EADs are processed for people seeking asylum. The most important of these rules are–

  • The waiting period to apply for an initial EAD based on asylum pending is extended from 150 days to 365 days. In other words, instead of waiting five months to apply for an EAD, asylum seekers now have to wait one year before applying for an EAD. This rule applies to asylum seekers who file for an initial (first time) EAD on or after August 25, 2020 (regardless of when they filed for asylum).
  • EADs will be denied for anyone who filed for asylum more than one year after arriving in the United States, unless an Immigration Judge or Asylum Officer determines that the applicant meets an exception to the one-year asylum-filing deadline. Such a determination cannot be made until the applicant attends an asylum interview or an Individual Hearing in Immigration Court, and so this effectively means that people who file for asylum after one year in the U.S. will not get an EAD while their case is pending. This rule applies to people who file for asylum on or after August 25, 2020.
  • Asylum applicants who entered the country “unlawfully” are ineligible for an EAD.
  • USCIS’s authority to deny EADs as a matter of discretion is expanded.

Asylum seekers have not capitulated to these changes, and there is currently at least one lawsuit challenging their validity. As of this writing, the judge in that case issued a preliminary injunction blocking the most onerous of the new rules, but only for asylum applicants who are members of two organizations involved in the lawsuit: Casa de Maryland and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project. This is a preliminary ruling based on the judge’s initial evaluation that many of the new rules are illegal; it is not a final decision one way or the other.

The bad news here is that the judge’s preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the new rules applies only to members of Casa and ASAP. The good news is that it does not apply only to current members of these organizations. This means that for people who are ineligible for an EAD under the new rules, you can join one of the organizations and potentially become eligible for an EAD based on the preliminary injunction. Thus, asylum seekers who are (or who become) members of these organizations are eligible to apply for an EAD after 150 days (as opposed to 365 days). Also, asylum seeker/members who filed for asylum after August 25, 2020, and who were in the U.S. for more than one year before filing for asylum, are still eligible for an EAD. You can learn more about the effect of the judge’s injunction here. You can join ASAP here, and Casa de Maryland here (you only have to be a member of one of these organization to qualify for protection under the preliminary injunction).

The other piece of good news from the injunction is that it may signal the judge’s intent to issue a favorable decision on the merits of the case, and to permanently block the new rules for all asylum seekers. When the judge will decide the merits of the case, we do not yet know.

Another unknown is the exact procedure by which members of Casa and ASAP can obtain an EAD. I reached out to an organization involved in the lawsuit, and it seems that the logistics of the process are still being worked out. In the mean time, if you think you would benefit from becoming a member of one of the organizations, you can join, so at least that piece will be in place when it comes time to apply for an EAD (and also, these are great organizations, so there are many good reasons to join). 

One final note, for those seeking initial EADs or renewing expiring EADs, keep in mind that fees are going up on October 2, 2020, and that USCIS keeps revising the I-765 form. Make sure to check the website and file the correct edition of the form, and the correct fee (or fee waiver).

The Trump Administration is working overtime to make it difficult for asylum seekers to obtain status in the U.S. But thanks to asylum-rights advocates, it is often still possible to win asylum and to obtain an EAD while your case is pending.

Continue reading

182 Comments

The Alternate Universe of a Trump Official

by Jason Dzubow

A whistleblower named Brian Murphy recently got attention for his claim that DHS officials ordered him to stop investigating Russian interference in the 2020 election. Until he was demoted a few months ago, Mr. Murphy ran the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis (“DHS I&A”). 

In the same complaint, Mr. Murphy also alleges that Acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli ordered him to alter intelligence reports to downplay violence and corruption in Central America. These reports are used to evaluate asylum claims and by downplaying the violence, it would be more difficult for asylum seekers to win their cases. From page 9 of the complaint–

In December 2019, Mr. Murphy attended a meeting with Messrs. Cuccinelli and Glawe to discuss intelligence reports regarding conditions in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. The intelligence reports were designed to help asylum officers render better determinations regarding their legal standards. Mr. Murphy’s team at DHS I&A completed the intelligence reports and he presented them to Mr. Cuccinelli in the meeting. Mr. Murphy defended the work in the reports, but Mr. Cuccinelli stated he wanted changes to the information outlining high levels of corruption, violence, and poor economic conditions in the three respective countries. Mr. Cuccinelli expressed frustration with the intelligence reports, and he accused unknown “deep state intelligence analysts” of compiling the intelligence information to undermine President Donald J. Trump’s (“President Trump”) policy objectives with respect to asylum. Notwithstanding Mr. Murphy’s response that the intelligence reports’ assessments were consistent with past assessments made for several years, Mr. Cuccinelli ordered Messrs. Murphy and Glawe to identify the names of the “deep state” individuals who compiled the intelligence reports and to either fire or reassign them immediately.

Mr. Murphy refused to comply with this order, which he deemed illegal. What to make of this?

Looked at this way, the Trump Administration’s policies make a lot more sense.

The first question is whether Mr. Murphy’s claims can be trusted. Here, there may be some reasons for doubt: Mr. Murphy has himself been accused of altering intelligence reports to better align with the Administration’s agenda, and he has also been accused of compiling intelligence reports on journalists at the Portland, Oregon protests (allegations he denies). After this information became public, Mr. Murphy was demoted, and so there is some speculation that perhaps his whistleblower complaint was made in retaliation for the demotion. On the other hand, Mr. Murphy apparently raised many of the issues listed in the complaint well before his demotion. Also, given that the allegations raised in the complaint are largely knowable (since others beside Mr. Murphy witnessed the events in the complaint and can confirm or deny their veracity), it seems unlikely that Mr. Murphy would simply make this stuff up. But of course, I do not know for sure.

Mr. Murphy’s credibility aside, this would not be the first instance of the Trump Administration altering country condition reports to better serve its agenda. In 2018, the State Department issued reports for El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras that left out significant derogatory information about those countries. The bowdlerization of those reports was no secret–all you have to do is compare the previous year’s reports to the newer reports to see what has been removed. And so there is clear precedent for what Mr. Murphy is alleging.

All things considered, my sense is that Mr. Murphy’s allegations are probably accurate. If so, what then do we make of Mr. Cuccinelli, the Acting Director of USCIS?

Here, there are two points I want to discuss. First is Mr. Cuccinelli’s desire to alter the reports in order to downplay the “corruption, violence, and poor economic conditions” in the three countries. Since asylum adjudicators rely on these reports to reach their decisions, making the countries seem less bad will potentially make it harder to win asylum. I say “potentially” because there are plenty of other sources of information that give an accurate picture of country conditions in the Northern Triangle. And so if the asylum applicant submits evidence about country conditions or if the adjudicator has such evidence, white-washing the DHS reports may not make much difference in the decision.

But there is a more concerning element to Mr. Cuccinelli’s request vis-a-vis these countries: Either he really believes that the DHS intelligence analysts are lying, or he (Mr. Cuccinelli) wants the U.S. government to lie in order to better achieve the Administration’s goal of denying more asylum cases. Neither possibility is comforting.

If we rely on Mr. Murphy’s account, it seems that Mr. Cuccinelli actually thinks that “deep state intelligence analysts” are somehow undermining Mr. Trump’s asylum agenda. Given that there are many sources for information about the Northern Triangle, including newspapers, human rights reports, and previous years’ intelligence assessments, and all seem to confirm the dire situation in Central America, it is hard to believe that a rational person would find anything nefarious about the picture painted by the DHS I&A reports. Does Mr. Cuccinelli believe that all the various sources are part of the “deep state”? It’s strange, since Mr. Cuccinelli is a lawyer and should know how to evaluate evidence. If Mr. Cuccinelli really believes that a group of deep state agents is sabotaging the country reports, it seems to me that he is living in an alternate reality, and that his confirmation bias is so overpowering that he can’t accept the real world for what it is. I suppose this is a possibility, as he also denies the existence of man-made climate change, which requires a certain level of detachment from reality.  

The other possible explanation is that Mr. Cuccinelli knows that the situation in the Northern Triangle is bad, but that he is simply lying in order to make it more difficult for applicants from those countries to obtain asylum. In other words, that the “means” of lying and returning migrants to face persecution is justified by the “ends” of keeping asylum seekers out of our country.

Unfortunately, the situation described in Mr. Murphy’s whistleblower complaint is emblematic of the Trump Administration, which has repeatedly used falsehoods to justify its policies. Whether it engages in those falsehoods knowing them to be false, or believing them to be true, probably doesn’t much matter. Either way, they are doing great harm to our democracy and to many of our nation’s most vulnerable people.

Continue reading

188 Comments

The Republican Party “Platform” on Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

As you’ve probably heard, the Republican Party has not adopted a new platform for 2020. Instead, they resolved that the “Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President’s America-first agenda.” I find this frightening.

The whole point of a platform is to get together (perhaps virtually) to discuss/debate the party’s priorities and then reach some consensus about how to proceed during the next four years. But now–in spite of significant new problems facing our country–the Republican Party has decided to simply defer to President Trump and stick with their 2016 platform. If you’re interested, I already wrote about the 2016 platform. In 2016. That an entire party, diverse in its opinions (if not its ethnic make-up), would take a pass on setting its goals, and instead agree simply to follow the leader, is deeply undemocratic.

That said, at least in terms of asylum seekers and refugees, we have a pretty good idea about what a second Trump Administration would do: Close the doors to America by every means at its disposal, including trampling due process of law (which endangers us all) and lying about the reasons why asylum seekers and refugees come here, who they are, and what they do once they get here (and of course, this never-ending mendacity also endangers us all).

Republican proposals include using a heat weapon to deter migrants.

So we have a general idea about what the Republicans would do with a second term, but what about specifics? Since the Republican Party itself won’t tell us its proposals related to asylum seekers and refugees, the intrepid reporters here at the Asylumist have scoured the internet to find out exactly what Mr. Trump has in mind if he is re-elected. Here is what we found–

  • The border patrol will deploy a heat ray weapon, which produces “agonizing pain” to those caught in its line of fire. The idea is that migrants caught in the device’s ray will turn back to Mexico before they become burnt toast.
  • ICE will continue to arrest thousands of non-citizen, thus demonstrating that it is more important to detain “illegals” in overcrowded, coronavirus-infected prisons, than to worry about public health. This also has the benefit of enriching the private-prison companies that hold immigrant detainees. In turn, those companies use their money to help bankroll President Trump’s re-election campaign. So it’s a win-win-win!
  • Since Mexico hasn’t paid for a wall (yet), Trump supporters have raised private funds through a group called “We Build the Wall,” which raked in $25 million from private donors who wanted to put their money where their hate is. How much wall they’ve actually built is anyone’s guess, but a number of the organization’s leaders–including ex-Trump aid Stephen Bannon–did manage to get themselves indicted for fraud. Despite this small hiccup, perhaps we can expect private funding of the border wall to continue under another Trump term.
  • During his first campaign, Mr. Trump famously opined that asylum seekers are bringing crime and drugs, and that they are rapists. “Some, I assume, are good people,” he said. But since most migrants are not good people, we have to continually treat them with suspicion. In that spirit, the Trump Administration wants to collect much more biometric evidence from non-citizens, including DNA samples. So essentially, immigrants will be forced to live in a surveillance state until they become citizens.
  • President Trump has gone back and forth about what to do for/to DACA recipients (people who came to the U.S. as children but who do not have status here). Recently, he proposed “taking care of people from DACA in a very Republican way.” Given how the Trump Administration has treated migrant children, asylum seekers fleeing gangs and domestic violence, and Muslims, the idea of being treated in a “very Republican way” does not seem all that appealing.

It’s unfortunate that we don’t have specifics from the Republicans about their immigration goals for the next four years. When a political party puts their proposals in writing, at least it requires members of the party to think through their plans, and it gives the public a clearer idea about what they hope to accomplish.

In the absence of a platform, we are left to speculate. And given the Trump Administration’s track record on asylum, refugees, and immigration, it seems unlikely that we can expect anything positive from them during a second term.

Continue reading

164 Comments

The Democratic Party Platform on Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

The Democratic Party has released its 2020 Party Platform, which represents the Democrats’ aspirations for the next four years. Separately, the Biden/Harris campaign has released its immigration plan. Both plans contain concrete policy suggestions (as well as plenty of hyperbole), and here I want to discuss the points that relate directly to asylum.

Before we get to that, let’s briefly look at the most important points related to immigration generally, since these proposals would also affect asylum seekers. In terms of immigration, the Democratic Party Platform seeks to accomplish the following–

  • Stop work on the border wall
  • End the Muslim ban
  • Protect Dreamers and parents of U.S. citizen children
  • End the public charge rule (form I-944)
  • Provide a path to citizenship for undocumented migrants living in the U.S.
  • Reduce immigration backlogs
  • Make it easier for spouses and children of Green Card holders to come to the United States
  • End the 3/10 year bar
  • Expand protections for victims of human trafficking and sex trafficking
  • Provide stronger work-place protections for non-citizen and undocumented workers
  • End workplace and community raids
  • Re-instate prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases
  • Prioritize alternatives to detention and end the practice of holding non-citizens for long periods
  • Consider expanding TPS (Temporary Protected Status) for people from war-torn countries
  • In terms of enforcement, prioritize criminals and others who threaten our national security
  • Reform employment-based visas for immigrant and non-immigrant workers
  • Provide more support services for new immigrants, so they can better integrate into U.S. society
  • End the use of for-profit detention centers
  • Increase the number of refugees admitted into the country
The Democratic Party Platform stands for the radical notion that non-citizens are human beings.

The Platform also contains a number of proposals that relate more specifically to asylum–

  • End policies that make it more difficult for victims of gang violence and domestic violence to receive asylum
  • End the criminal prosecution of asylum seekers at the border and stop separating families
  • End policies designed to force asylum seekers to apply for protection in a “safe third country”
  • End the Migrant Protection Protocols (the “wait in Mexico” policy)
  • Send humanitarian resources to the border to deal with the migration crisis
  • Send more Asylum Officers to the border, and for asylum seekers who “pass” a credible fear interview, have an Asylum Officer–as opposed to an Immigration Judge–review the full case
  • Double the number of Immigration Judges, court staff, and interpreters

This is an ambitious agenda, and it is certainly more pro-immigrant than what we saw during the Obama Administration. Whether these goals can realistically be implemented, I do not know.

As for the proposals related to asylum, you can see that they are largely designed to reverse policies of the Trump Administration, and they mainly apply to migrants arriving at our Southern border. Mr. Trump’s policies have been abhorrent and ineffective (and not always legal), and so we obviously need to do something different at the border. The risk is that by deploying more resources to the border, the government will be unable to interview affirmative asylum seekers, thus further increasing the backlog. Also, if Mr. Biden’s policies encourage more migrants to come here, that could further strain the system and result in a political backlash.

In terms of changing the asylum law, Mr. Biden’s only substantive proposal is to reverse Trump-era restrictions on asylum for victims of domestic violence and criminal gangs. This is an important issue, since so many asylum seekers (especially from Central America) are fleeing these types of harm. Persecution by criminals and domestic partners has not traditionally been a basis for asylum eligibility. Over years of litigation, the scope of asylum protection has expanded to include LGBT individuals, victims of female genital mutilation, and to a lesser extent, victims of domestic and gang violence (under the rubric of “particular social group”). But since President Trump came into office, his Administration has been rolling back these gains, particularly with regard to persecution by criminal gangs and domestic partners. If Mr. Biden is elected and reverses this trend, more people would qualify for protection and lives will be saved, but this could also encourage more people to seek protection in our country.

To deal with this concern, Mr. Biden’s plan includes an effort to address the root causes of migration from Central America (violence, lawlessness, impunity, and poverty). Hopefully that would help improve the situation in those countries and mitigate the number of people seeking protection in the U.S. But in terms of our immigration system, more needs to be done.

Specifically, we need an honest national conversation about who should be eligible for asylum and how many asylum seekers we should admit. Unfortunately, in the current environment, this seems impossible. But until we can have such a conversation, and reach some semblance of a consensus, asylum will remain a political wedge issue and asylum seekers will continue suffering from backlogs and shifting eligibility standards. In the event that Joe Biden takes office in January, I hope that this conversation will be part of his agenda, and that he will work with Congress and the public to reach a sustainable solution for asylum seekers.

Overall, Mr. Biden’s asylum plans seem largely reactive–he wants to reverse the damage caused by the Trump Administration. But he is also advocating for a broad immigration reform, which would benefit many non-citizens, including many asylum seekers. Even if all he did was speak truthfully about migration and respect the law, Mr. Biden would be a vast improvement over what we have now. Let us all resolve to do what we can to help Mr. Biden succeed in November and beyond.

Continue reading

190 Comments

Non-citizens Can Participate in the 2020 Election! Here’s How

by Jason Dzubow

The U.S. immigration system is a disaster. Hundreds of thousands of applicants are stuck in limbo, many cases are arbitrarily denied, and due process protections have been reduced or eliminated. While it is still possible to win individual cases, the Trump Administration has done everything possible–legal and illegal–to block asylum seekers and immigrants, and to undermine the fair implementation of our nation’s immigration laws. With the immigration system under attack, the only way to protect individual immigrants is to defend that system. But how?

Over the last 3½ years, non-citizens and their advocates have done their best to defend the immigration system. Lawsuits have sought to mitigate the Muslim ban, “remain in Mexico,” the public charge rules, and so on. Advocacy work has had some successes as well–allowing foreign students to remain in the U.S. and reducing the number of children in cages. All of these efforts have been something of a rear-guard action–trying to keep the retreat from becoming a route.

Now, with the election approaching, there is a chance to achieve real change. If Joe Biden and the Democrats take the White House, we can expect an end to many of the most egregious attacks on non-citizens. No one has a bigger stake in this election than asylum seekers and other non-citizens. But of course, as non-citizens, you are not permitted to vote or donate money to Mr. Biden or the Democrats. But that doesn’t mean you can’t participate in the election campaign. Here, we’ll talk about what you, as a non-U.S. citizen, can and cannot do. Let’s start with the cannots.

Before they can help us, we have to help them.

You cannot vote. It is illegal for anyone but a U.S. citizen to vote in a federal election. Non-citizens who vote can face fines, jail time, and deportation.

A “foreign national” cannot contribute money to a campaign, even if that contribution is indirect (for example, through a political action committee). “Foreign national” is defined as an “individual who is not a citizen of the United States… and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” Thus, if you are a non-citizen, but you have a Green Card, you are permitted to donate money to a political campaign. Note that if you have applied for a Green Card or asylum or any other immigration benefit, and you have not yet received that benefit, you cannot legally contribute money to a campaign. Even if you have an Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”), you are not eligible to make a contribution.

Also, foreign nationals cannot make “decisions concerning the administration of any political committee,” meaning basically that you cannot take a leadership or decision-making role in a campaign or an organization supporting a campaign or candidate.

Finally, foreign nationals cannot work for a candidate and receive compensation from anyone.

So much for the cannots. Now let’s look at what a non-citizen can do to help during the upcoming election.

The main thing you can do to participate in the election is to volunteer with a candidate. The Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) website provides guidance for foreign nationals who wish to volunteer during an election–

Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer “exemption” as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone.

What do volunteers do? The most important activity for volunteers is to encourage people to register and vote. You can do this by making phone calls to potential voters. Here, the ability to speak different languages might be very useful. There are many new Americans, who are eligible to vote, but who might be more comfortable speaking in their native language. The phone calls can be made from your own home (using an app, which does not reveal your personal phone number) and the people you are calling tend to be happy to hear from you, as they have been selected because they are predisposed to vote for a Democrat. The purpose of the call is to ensure that they are registered to vote, and that they know how to vote when the time comes.

You can also participate by sending text messages to prospective voters. Again, you can do this from home, and it really does help.

There are other volunteer opportunities available as well, not only for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, but for “down ballot” candidates, whose election is also very important for protecting non-citizens (and all of us). For calling and texting, and other types of volunteer work, the Biden campaign provides training and support. To learn more, and get in touch with a volunteer coordinator, contact the Biden campaign here. Make sure they understand your immigration status, so they can put you to work in an appropriate capacity.

Finally, according to a federal court decision (penned by now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh no less), the foreign national ban–

does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues. It restrains them only from a certain form of expressive activity closely tied to the voting process—providing money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.

Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 290 (D.D.C. 2011), aff’d 132 S. Ct. 1087 (2012). Thus, it may be possible to make financial contributions to non-political “issue” organizations that do not mention candidates, political offices, political parties, incumbent federal officeholders or any past or future election. See AO 1984-41 (National Conservative Foundation). If you plan to contribute financially, check with the beneficiary organization to be sure that your immigration status is not a bar (and remember that Green Card holders may freely engage in political activity and make donations, as long as they do not vote). 

There is a lot riding on the November election. Unfortunately, President Trump has used fear and division to mobilize many people. He has also attacked the rule of law, due process, and democracy itself. We need everyone–including non-citizens waiting to officially join our nation–to help elect Joe Biden and to preserve the republic for us all.

Continue reading

223 Comments