In January 2023, Customs and Border Protection launched a new iteration of its CBP One app. When it functions, the app allows migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border to make an appointment to present an initial request for asylum in the United States. The app has been plagued with technical problems, and many migrants simply did not have the equipment, language skills or know-how to use it properly. Nevertheless, starting on May 11, 2023, any migrant who arrives at the border and does not use the app may be barred from asylum in the United States. There are exceptions to the rule and the legality of excluding asylum seekers who do not utilize CBP One has been challenged in court.
Today, we’ll talk about CBP One and what can be done to overcome the asylum bar for people who failed to make an appointment using the app. (more…)
In contrast to the Republican Platform, the Democratic Party Platform specifically discusses asylum, though mostly in the context of securing the border. While the Platform is fairly general and was created when Joe Biden was still the presumptive nominee, I would not expect major changes if Kamala Harris is elected president. Aside from future aspirations, the Platform discusses the Biden Administration’s accomplishments, though again, mostly related to border security. Here, we will look at the Biden Administration’s claimed accomplishments, as well as the party’s future plans. (more…)
The Republican Party has released its Platform for 2024. As usual with these things, it is short on specifics and long on political rhetoric. The first issue mentioned in the Platform is immigration: “Common Sense tells us clearly, in President Trump’s words, that ‘If we don’t have a Border, we don’t have a Country.'” It continues: “We must not allow Biden’s Migrant Invasion to alter our Country.” “Under the Trump Administration and a Republican Congress, it will be defeated immediately.” But how?
The Platform has a six-part plan “to stop the open-border policies that have opened the floodgates to a tidal wave of illegal Aliens, deadly drugs, and Migrant Crime.” Here, we’ll take a look at the plan and I will offer some thoughts. (more…)
The law of asylum requires applicants to file their form I-589 within one year of arriving in the United States; otherwise, their case can be denied as untimely. There are exceptions to the one-year filing rule, and if you are relying on one of those, you would normally include that information in the I-589 at the time of filing.
However, it is also possible to qualify for an exception to the one-year bar after you file for asylum. I recently employed some nifty case law to help a client overcome the one-year bar and win asylum, and I imagine that other late filers might benefit from this client’s experience. (more…)
Growing up gay in Nigeria was dangerous, both physically and psychologically. Despite the obstacles, Edafe Okporo managed to build a life for himself, get an education, and find a job where he helped gay men access healthcare. During his years in Nigeria, Mr. Okporo watched as conditions worsened for members of the LGBT community. The country enacted anti-LGBT legislation, which criminalized homosexuality and encouraged community members to report sexual minorities to the police. In 2016, a mob attacked Mr. Okporo in his home and beat him into unconsciousness, chanting “Gay! Gay! Gay!” The last straw came later that same year when–ironically–Mr. Okporo received recognition for his activism by a U.S.-based NGO. The NGO posted an article about Mr. Okporo online, essentially “outing” him to anyone with an internet connection. He immediately fled his home and fled his country.
In his new book, Asylum–A Memoir & Manifesto, Mr. Okporo recounts his tale of persecution, his escape to America, and his experience with the U.S. asylum system. (more…)
The Biden Administration has proposed new regulations that restrict who is eligible to claim asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. The new rules anticipate the end of Title 42, a public-health program that limited the number of people who could seek protection at the border. Advocates have condemned the new measure, labeling it a “transit ban” that is unworkable and a violation of U.S. asylum law. Whether the policy is illegal, I am not sure, but it certainly seems unworkable in the sense that it will likely not deter many asylum seekers from coming to the border to ask for protection.
Here, I want to talk about the new rule, and what impact it might have on asylum seekers at the border and in the interior. (more…)
I wrote last time about recent updates from the Asylum Division. Here, I want to focus on one element of those updates: How the Asylum Offices are dealing with asylum applications from Afghan evacuees.
Since Afghanistan fell to the Taliban in August 2021, about 88,000 Afghans have been evacuated by the U.S. government and brought to our country. These are generally people who cooperated or worked with the United States or the prior Afghan government, plus their immediate family members. These Afghans would be at risk of harm or death in their country due to their affiliation with the United States or the prior government of Afghanistan.
Ideally, we would have brought these people here and given them permanent status, so they could feel stable and safe, and so they could start rebuilding their lives. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. A bill to regularize the status of Afghan evacuees–the Afghan Adjustment Act–has stalled in Congress, and so the evacuees are left in limbo, not knowing whether they can stay or whether they will have to leave. As a result, many evacuees have no other option but to seek asylum. This situation is absurd and insulting, and–adding injury to insult–the Asylum Offices are mishandling the Afghan’s applications. (more…)
Vladimir Putin has had a gun to the head of Ukraine for years. The most recent troubles began in 2014, when a pro-Russian president of Ukraine fled to Russia, rather than submit to an impeachment vote (he was impeached anyway). Several regions of Ukraine declared loyalty to the former president, and fighting broke out. Ultimately, parts of Ukraine came under Kremlin control, including the Crimean peninsula, which Russia annexed after an “election” by that region’s residents. Since then, fighting and allegations between the two nations have waxed and waned, but the Russians did not move towards a major escalation–until recently.
The current buildup began last fall, and there are now more than 100,000 Russian soldiers and Ukrainian separatists deployed for war. Analyst have suggested that a large-scale invasion is likely in the coming days or weeks. What does this mean for Ukrainian citizens in the United States who face possible persecution if Russia takes over or installs a pro-Russian puppet? Can such people file for asylum now, even though a Russian invasion is still speculative? (more…)
This post is by Jim Feroli, an attorney with Immigration Legal Services (ILS) of Catholic Charities, Washington, DC. He has worked with ILS since 2014 and helps to manage the pro bono program. He focuses on asylum, U Visa and VAWA cases, and removal defense generally. He has also represented immigration clients before the Board of Immigration Appeals and U.S. Courts of Appeals.
I’m a movie fan. If you haven’t seen it, I recommend the film Gladiator. Russell Crowe stars as Maximus, a Roman general who is betrayed, sold into slavery, and forced to fight in gladiator matches. The movie has some good action scenes and strong acting by Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix, who plays the demented and cruel heir to the throne. It’s about persistence, redemption, and the human spirit and is worth a watch on Netflix.
As an immigration lawyer, I wondered would Maximus, as a slave in ancient Rome, qualify for membership in a particular social group? I’m sure most people watching the film had the same concern. My answer is yes. Maximus’s status is immutable. Slavery in this context is both a status and a condition. As much as Maximus may want to change his status, it is beyond his control. By chance he could be emancipated, but more likely, he will die a slave. Being a member of the group of slaves is also particular. It is distinct and the borders of the group are clear. There is a strong contrast between persons who are slaves—and thus private property—and those who are not. Generally, people should understand if they fit within the group of slaves or free persons, in this case Roman citizens. Lastly, the group is socially distinct. Legally and economically, society recognizes slaves as different. They are deprived the rights to participate in civic life and may be bought and sold by others. Certainly, a runaway slave should qualify for refugee status and not be returned to face additional persecution.(more…)
This article is by Allen Schwartz, a former Asylum Officer who now offers consulting services to asylum seekers and attorneys. He may be reached at allen.schwartz@visaconsults.com or (305) 528-6474. Learn more about him at his website, www.visaconsults.com.
After a 23-year career as an Asylum Officer with INS/USCIS, I decided to retire in late 2019 and pursue my lifelong passions, such as travel and exploring this incredible world with its wide variety of people, cultures, and languages. I also planned on utilizing my extensive background in immigration, particularly asylum and refugee work, as a consultant. Little did I know or could have predicted that a few months after my retirement, the COVID-19 pandemic struck the world in unimaginable ways and turned “normal life” upside down. As a result of the pandemic, international borders were closed, embassies and consulates were shut down, travel was severely restricted, and immigration to the United States came to an almost virtual standstill.
COVID-19 has also dramatically reduced the number of affirmative asylum cases being scheduled and interviewed at our Asylum Offices here in the United States and the affirmative asylum backlog has continued to grow exponentially. Only recently have we seen that in-person asylum interviews are being scheduled again, albeit at a significantly reduced number.
Before COVID-19, each Asylum Officer was required to interview eight cases per week, a very daunting task. Currently, the number of interviews have been cut at least in half in most offices, since the Asylum Officer, the attorney/representative, and the applicant must be in separate rooms. A recent policy change requires that interpretation must be provided by a telephonic government-contracted translator during the interview. Prior to COVID-19, applicants were required to bring their own interpreter for the interview. The future for an accelerated and expansive interview schedule for affirmative asylum cases remains to be seen. While we wait, I have prepared a six-point “best advice” list for your review– (more…)
Last week, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued two decisions reversing Trump-era cases that limited asylum eligibility. Here, we’ll discuss those cases and how the AG’s decision will affect asylum seekers.
The first case, Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N 307 (AG 2021), involves asylum for victims of domestic violence. There is a long history here, but the basic story is that victims of domestic violence have traditionally had a hard time qualifying for asylum. Through a series of cases between 2004 and 2014, the government created a (convoluted) path for victims of DV to receive asylum by classifying them as a “particular social group” (to qualify for asylum, an applicant must show that the feared harm is “on account of” race, religion, nationality, political opinion or particular social group). While this was an important step for DV asylum seekers, presenting a successful case was still very difficult, especially for people without a lawyer (probably the majority of applicants). The Trump Administration re-visited DV asylum starting in 2018, and essentially erased the gains made during the prior decade and a half. Now, the pendulum has swung once again, and the Biden Administration has reversed the Trump-era reversal. In other words, we are back to the not-so-great place where we were in 2017. This means that victims of domestic violence can once again obtain asylum, assuming they can satisfy the narrow definition created prior to President Trump. (more…)
The Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition (TASSC) International will hold its annual conference and advocacy days from June 23 to 26, 2021. The theme of this year’s conference is “The Asylum Crisis in the USA.” This is a great opportunity to learn about the challenges facing the U.S. asylum system–and to do something about it. All events (including advocacy) will be held online and are free. In support of the conference and its goals, from today until June 30, all proceeds from my new book, The Asylumist: How to Seek Asylum in the United States and Keep Your Sanity, will go to TASSC International!
TASSC is an amazing organization consisting of torture survivors and asylum seekers who help and support each other. Speakers at the event will include torture survivors, advocates, mental health professionals, and lawyers (including yours truly–on June 23rd at 11:30 AM).
The first day of the conference features a number of important topics, including a discussion about the asylum system’s failures and challenges, survivor resilience, and advocating for a humane asylum system. There will also be a training for people participating in the advocacy days (on June 24 and 25). (more…)
There are different types of benefits available to people seeking asylum and people who have been granted asylum. Here we will discuss certain “benefits” – such as work permits, travel documents, and Green Cards – available to asylum seekers and asylees, and how these benefits can be improved.(more…)
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.
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.
