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

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

Let’s Deny Asylum to Sick People!

by Jason Dzubow

Horace Walpole famously observed that the world is a comedy to those who think, and a tragedy to those who feel. That about sums up my view of the Trump Administration’s immigration policies: They are so ludicrous and so removed from reality that they would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that people are dying. The most recent proposed regulation neatly fits into this dichotomy; it is as absurd as it is harmful.

Using the pandemic as an excuse, the Administration proposes expanding an existing bar–applicable to aliens deemed a “danger to the security of the United States”–to deny asylum to “aliens who potentially risk bringing in deadly infectious disease to, or facilitating its spread within, the United States.” As usual, the main targets of this latest policy are aliens seeking asylum at the Southern border, but other applicants might be effected as well. Also, unlike some of the prior bans, this one specifically targets non-citizens seeking protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. 

Let’s start with the law. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), there are several “bars” to obtaining asylum. These bars prohibit granting asylum to aliens who (1) “ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated” in the persecution of others on account of a protected ground; (2) were convicted of a “particularly serious crime”; (3) committed a “serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States”; (4) are a “danger to the security of the United States”; (5) are involved in terrorist-related activities; or (6) were “firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States.”

Gesundheit! That’s German for “Asylum Denied.”

Do you notice anything about these different bars? Except for number 6, they all involve people doing bad things. While “danger to the security of the United States” could theoretically be interpreted to include sick people, when considered in relation to the other bars, that interpretation doesn’t make a lot of sense. Indeed, there is a principle of statutory construction called ejusdem generis, which basically says that when you have a list that contains a vague term, you should interpret that term consistent with other items on the list. The BIA famously invoked ejusdem generis (and called it a “well-established doctrine”) in Matter of Acosta, when it interpreted the meaning of particular social group. So it seems more than a small stretch for the Trump Administration to define “danger to the security of the United States” in such broad terms, and we can hold out some hope that this provision will be struck down because it violates the INA (and, by the way, the proposed regulation invokes similar logic to try to block people from obtaining Withholding of Removal). 

Assuming the new rule goes into effect, what constitutes a danger to security? According to the proposed regulation, “In determining whether there are reasonable grounds for regarding an alien or a class of aliens as a danger to the security of the United States… the Secretary of Homeland Security may consider whether the alien exhibits symptoms consistent with being afflicted with any contagious or infectious disease or has come into contact with such disease, or whether the alien or class of aliens is coming from a country, or a political subdivision or region of that country, or has embarked at a place, where such disease is prevalent or epidemic.” So if an alien seems sick, or if she traveled through an area that the U.S. government believes contains an epidemic, she will be barred from asylum. Worse, this regulation gives the government the power to bar a “class of aliens” from asylum. Presumably, that would be aliens from a particular country, or who passed through a particular area.

While this rule applies to all asylum seekers, I suspect that if it is implemented, it will mostly affect those who arrive at the border (or an airport) and request protection. Such aliens undergo a credible fear interview (an initial evaluation of asylum eligibility). If the alien “passes” the credible fear interview, he can present his claim to an Immigration Judge, who then grants asylum, some other relief, or orders the person deported. Up until now, the asylum bars did not apply to credible fear interviews. However, under the proposed regulation, an alien subject to a bar would “fail” the credible fear interview and likely be deported. This means that if an alien comes from, or passes through, an area where an epidemic is prevalent, or if she appears sick, her request for protection in the U.S. will be automatically rejected. 

Let’s think about this for a moment. Under this new rule, if a person was imprisoned, beaten and raped due to her political opinion, and then she escapes her country, she will be denied protection in the United States and sent home simply because she traveled through an area that is experiencing an epidemic. Even if she herself is not sick! How nice.

One last element of this proposed regulation that I want to discuss is the rule related to Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. Under the CAT, the U.S. cannot return a person to a country where he will be tortured. There are essentially no exceptions to this rule. But the proposed regulation seeks to change this–

If the alien makes this showing [that he is more likely than not to suffer torture in the home country], then DHS can choose in its discretion to place the alien in [Immigration Court] proceedings… or return the alien to a third country under appropriate standards.

In other words, when the alien arrives at the border to request protection, she must show that it is “more likely than not” that she will be tortured in the home country. This is a very high standard of proof for someone just arriving in the U.S. who likely does not understand the asylum system or have access to a legal counsel. Further, even if the alien somehow manages to demonstrate that she will be tortured in the home country, DHS can simply choose to send her to a third country (and this can happen–the Trump Administration has bullied or convinced Guatemala to accept some asylum seekers). Basically, we get to wash our hand of our responsibility to protect torture survivors.    

The only saving grace here is that this regulation is so poorly thought out that it is susceptible to a court challenge. Also, it seems to me that there is a much easier way to determine whether an asylum seeker is a “danger to the security of the United States” due to disease: Give him a test for that disease. If he is negative, there is no reason to bar him from asylum. If he is positive, maybe–I don’t know, this may sound crazy–help him get better. Treating human beings humanely. Sadly, it’s a novel concept in Trump’s America.

Continue reading

131 Comments

Asylum Seekers Have Power! Here’s How You Can Help Save Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

As you probably know, the Trump Administration recently proposed regulations to make it much more difficult to obtain asylum in the United States. That’s the bad news. The good news is that there is something you can do to try to reduce the damage: Submit a comment opposing the regulation. Submitting a comment is easy, free, and safe, even for people with no lawful status in the U.S. You can do it from the comfort of your own home. Right now. And best of all, it really can help. Here, we’ll talk about how to submit an effective comment.

Before we get to that, let’s talk a bit about the proposed regulation, which you can see here. The purpose of this regulation (and every regulation) is to interpret the law, as created by Congress. Regulations are created by government agencies (in our case, by the Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review) because agencies have specialized knowledge about how to implement (or in our case, subvert) the law. The regulations cannot violate the law or they will be invalidated by courts. Also, regulations cannot be “arbitrary and capricious,” meaning the agency must provide a rational reason for the regulation. While there is a lot of bad stuff in the proposed regulation, I wanted to focus here on the points that people might be most interested to comment about–

  • The definition of “particular social group” is narrowed, so that it is more difficult to get asylum if you fear harm from gang members or criminals, or based on domestic violence or an interpersonal dispute
  • The definition of “political opinion” is narrowed to exclude people who have a generalized opposition to criminals or terrorists
  • The level of harm required to demonstrate “persecution” is increased, and so asylum applicants will need to show a “severe level of harm”
  • The categories of people eligible for asylum are reduced, and people who fear persecution on account of “gender” are excluded from asylum
  • The new rule encourages decision-makers to deny otherwise-eligible applicants based on “discretion” and lists several “significant adverse discretionary factors,” including–
    • unlawful entry into the U.S. or use of fraudulent documents
    • the failure to seek protection in any third country the alien “transited” through, unless that country denied protection to the alien, the alien was a victim of human trafficking or the country was not a party to the Refugee Convention of 1951, the Protocol of 1967 or the United Nations Convention Against Torture
    • remained unlawfully in the U.S. for more than one year before seeking asylum
    • failed to file or pay taxes, if required
    • failed to report income to the IRS (i.e., worked without authorization and did not pay tax – this one will be a particular problem if the plan to delay and deny work permits for asylum seekers goes into effect)
  • Otherwise-eligible applicants will be denied asylum as a matter of discretion where they spent more than 14 days in a third country before coming to the U.S. or where they transited through more than one third country before coming to the U.S. (there are some exceptions to this rule, similar to those listed for the prior bullet point about “transit” through a third country)
  • Applicants will be denied asylum where they “either resided or could have resided in any permanent legal immigration status or any non-permanent, potentially indefinitely renewable legal immigration status… in a country through which the alien transited prior to arriving in or entering the United States, regardless of whether the alien applied for or was offered such status”
  • Torture Convention relief is not available where the torturer is a “rogue” official
  • Finally, it is not clear, but as the regulations are written, they could be applied to people who already have asylum cases pending. Obviously, this would be unfair, as it would punish applicants for choices they made years ago (if the rules are applied retroactively, they might very well be blocked by a legal challenge)
Other significant adverse discretionary factors include filing for asylum, fearing persecution, and not being an American citizen.

If there are things here you don’t like, you can comment about them. How to do that?

First, go to this web page, where the proposed regulations are posted. If you look in the upper right part of the page, you will see a dark blue box that says “Comment Now!” Click on that, and you will be taken to a page where you can type your comment. If you want to be fancy, you can even attach files to your comment. You also have to type a name. You can type your own name, but you can also write “anonymous.” The name you type will be included when the comment is posted publicly. There is an option to include your contact information, but this information will not be displayed publicly. Once you are done, check the box indicating that you “read and understand” your statement and hit “Submit Comment.” That’s it. Easy peasy.

While you are on the regulation web page, you can look to see what other people wrote (on the right side of the page). When I last checked, there were more than 1,300 comments.

What should you say?

It is best to write an individualized statement, rather than use a pre-made template. If you are an asylum applicant, maybe think about any parts of the new regulation that might harm you and explain how you will be harmed. You might also write about why you chose to seek asylum in the U.S. (if, indeed, you had a choice) and what is your impression of the U.S. asylum system. Remember, as an asylum applicant, you have something important to say and your voice should be part of this conversation. One important point: All comments must be submitted prior to 11:59 PM Eastern time on July 15, 2020. Also, if you post a comment, and you don’t mind, please copy and paste what you write into the comments section of this blog (below).

If you’d like some additional advice about what to write, check out these postings by Tahirih Justice Center and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), or just read the comments already posted on the regulation. The federal government also provides general, but helpful, advice about writing a comment.

Finally, you might ask, Does posting a comment matter?

Apparently, it does. According to AILA, “The administration will review and address those comments before the rule becomes finalized, so it is critical for us to submit as many unique comments as possible.” More comments = a longer review process. This will buy more time before these draconian new rules are implemented. Also, the “government gives more weight to each comment if it is unique from others,” and so it is important to personalize your submission.

Since its inception, the Trump Administration has been waging war against the rule of law in our country. Immigrants and asylum seekers have always been the first target in this war, but they are far from the only target. In this particular battle, asylum seekers have a crucial role to play, and so I hope you will consider making a comment in opposition to the proposed regulations. Together, we can protect our asylum system and our country.

Continue reading

282 Comments

Asylum in a Time of War

by Jason Dzubow

With the escalating tension between the U.S. and Iran, DHS has been detaining Iranian Americans and Iranian nationals at the border and questioning them about their ties to Iran, their background, their family members, and their opinion about the Iranian government.

On the one hand, it’s perfectly reasonable to question people entering our country, particularly during wartime (and when was the last time we were not at war?). It’s also reasonable to apply additional scrutiny to people from “enemy nations.” And so, on one level, it makes sense to look more closely at Iranian Americans and Iranian nationals who are seeking entry into the United States.

On the other hand, it’s difficult to accept anything the Trump Administration does without feeling that there is an ulterior motive. At this point, we have been subject to so many lies, in the service of such bad policies, that nothing the Administration does can be viewed at face value. Is there any intelligence that indicates Iran is planning to retaliate by sending agents to our country? Is there any reason to suspect the particular people stopped and questioned at the border? Or does the Administration just want to scare us, in order to further justify its xenophobic policies? Or maybe to distract from the impeachment? There is no way to know, and when you can’t trust what your own government tells you, it is impossible to evaluate whether its actions are warranted.

Enrico Fermi (left) also invented the Photo Bomb.

In any event, here I want to talk about asylum during wartime. I suppose one response to war would be to shut down the border completely, block all nationals from the enemy country from coming to the U.S., and take measures against any of those nationals (or their decedents) living in the United States. We did the latter during the Second World War, when we detained Americans of Japanese decent. Notably, we did not detain Germans or Italians, even though we were also at war with those countries. But what about granting asylum to “enemy aliens” during wartime? Welcoming them to our country, even though we are at war with their homeland?

There certainly is precedent for giving refuge to “enemy aliens.” Probably the most famous examples are the scientists who fled fascism and anti-Semitism during the Second World War. People like Albert Einstein and Enrico Fermi found refuge in the United States and made important contributions to our efforts during the War (I’m not a fan of the Bomb, but I’m glad we got it before the Nazis). Another well-known example is the Cubans who fled Communism after Fidel Castro took power on their native island. For the past six decades, those same Cubans have been fierce opponents of the Castro regime. A third example is the Iranians who came to the United States after the 1979 revolution. While they generally oppose military intervention against their homeland, most Iranian Americans support democracy and human rights in Iran.

I encountered a less well-known example when I lived in Philadelphia in the mid-1990’s. I met an old man at my synagogue who had been a refugee during WWII. He was Jewish, born in Germany. During the 1930’s, he fled to Britain as a refugee. When the War started, he was detained as an enemy alien and shipped (by boat) to Australia. He was stuck down under for a while, until the Brits realized that he spoke German, and so they shipped him all the way back to England to serve in an intelligence unit. He assisted the Allies during the War, and then later immigrated to the United States.

Also, in my job, I meet people every day who are working to bring democracy and human rights to their countries of origin. Once they get their bearings in the U.S., many of my clients work directly or indirectly to assist the United States with diplomacy and national security. My client from Iran, for instance, is a computer expert who works to overcome censorship in his home country (and in other authoritarian countries), so people can access websites blocked by the government. Another client, from Afghanistan, organizes conferences, bringing high-level American and foreign experts together to discuss national security challenges. A third client advocates for democracy in Cambodia, and is regularly in contact with important U.S. government officials. And a number of my clients work for Voice of American (on and off the air), bringing news and promoting American values in their home countries. You get the point: Foreign nationals who have obtained refuge in the United States, often from hostile regimes, are working to advance U.S. interests and to educate U.S. decision-makers and the public, so we can better respond to national security challenges.

And herein lies the rub: How do we obtain the benefits of this expertise while minimizing the risk to our security? The answer, I think, is asylum. Remember, we do not offer asylum to just anyone who fears harm. Asylum is for people who face persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or particular social group. These “protected grounds” reflect our national values, and thus, asylum is basically set up to benefit people who will benefit us. Asylum seekers are also subject to rigorous security background checks. And so if the system is working properly, we will receive refugees from hostile regimes who will be well-vetted and will present minimal risk to our national security, and who are well-positioned to assist our country vis-a-vis their homelands.

Of course, when a conflict exists between our nation and another nation, we must exercise caution in dealing with citizens of the hostile power. We should use all the tools at our disposal to advance our interests and to keep ourselves safe. Asylum is one of those tools. Rather than discard the asylum system during wartime, we should use it as it was intended–to benefit those who support our values, and to benefit ourselves.

Continue reading

82 Comments

Acting USCIS Director to Asylum Seekers: You Can Live Safely in Your Own Country

by Jason Dzubow

Acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli is encouraging Asylum Officers to deny asylum applications and credible fear interviews by any means necessary. He is particularly concerned about our Southern border, where “an unprecedented number of aliens [are] overwhelming our asylum system.” According to Mr. Cuccinelli, many of these aliens are “ineligible for asylum and are attempting to enter and remain in the country in violation of our laws.” His latest strategy for rejecting asylum applicants involves a regulatory bar to asylum called “internal relocation.”

Under existing rules, where an applicant fears harm from non-state actors, Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges should determine whether the applicant can live safely anywhere in the home country–in other words, whether the applicant can internally relocate. If the applicant can live safely within her home country, she is probably ineligible for asylum. The burden of proof in “internal relocation” cases varies, depending on whether the government is the persecutor, and whether the applicant has suffered past persecution: According to the regulations—

In cases in which the applicant has not established past persecution, the applicant shall bear the burden of establishing that it would not be reasonable for him or her to relocate, unless the persecution is by a government or is government-sponsored.

In cases in which the persecutor is a government or is government-sponsored, or the applicant has established persecution in the past, it shall be presumed that internal relocation would not be reasonable, unless the Service establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that, under all the circumstances, it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate.

Ken Cuccinelli: “Erupting volcanoes contain areas that are generally very safe. Look, here’s one!”

This means that where the government is not the persecutor, and the applicant has not suffered past persecution, the applicant must demonstrate that there is no place in his country where he can live safely. How do you show this? First, according to the Board of Immigration Appeals, internal relocation must be “reasonable under all the circumstances.” According to the relevant regulations, “adjudicators should consider, but are not limited to considering, whether the applicant would face other serious harm in the place of suggested relocation; any ongoing civil strife within the country; administrative, economic, or judicial infrastructure; geographical limitations; and social and cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health, and social and familial ties.” An example from my practice would be a single woman from Afghanistan who fears persecution from the Taliban because of her political activities. Given the restrictive culture in Afghanistan and the generally high level of violence throughout the country, especially against women, it would not be reasonable to expect her to pick up and move to a new city.

Where the persecutor is the government, or where the applicant has demonstrated past persecution, the applicant enjoys a presumption that internal relocation is impossible. Under these circumstances, the U.S. government has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that safe internal relocation is possible. An example of government persecution and internal relocation might be an Evangelical Christian from Eritrea. The government there persecutes people from “banned” religions, including Evangelicals. Since the Eritrean government controls the entire country, internal relocation is not possible. The situation might be different in a country where the government does not control all its territory. For example, an applicant who fears persecution from the Iraqi government might be questioned about whether she could “internally relocate” to Kurdistan, since that area has some autonomy from the central government of Iraq. In this example, there are restrictions on a non-Kurd’s ability to live in the Kurdish region, and so I doubt that the U.S. government could demonstrate that internal relocation is possible, but they might make that argument.

A more unclear situation exists where the asylum applicant suffered past persecution from a non-state actor. Here, there exists a presumption that internal relocation is not possible. However, given the Acting USCIS Director’s admonition, I imagine that Asylum Officers will be encouraged to look more closely at whether such applicants can live safely within their countries.

If you are concerned about internal relocation, what can you do? Whether the burden is on you or on the government, it is a good idea to submit evidence that internal relocation is impossible. This is relatively easy where the government is the persecutor and controls the entirety of the nation’s territory. In other cases, where the persecutor is a non-state actor, things become more complicated.

The “internal relocation” analysis is really a two-step process: First, is it possible to relocate within the country and avoid persecution? And second, is internal relocation reasonable under all the circumstances? Based on this framework, the first thing to do is to submit evidence that the persecutor can reach you anywhere in the country. Typically, that would be country reports or news articles showing that, for example, gang members or terrorists are ubiquitous throughout the country. The State Department puts out a crime and safety report, which is often helpful, especially given that the Trump Administration has white-washed country conditions in many of its human rights reports. Other helpful sources include UNHCR RefWorld, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International, to name a few. Of course, if you tried to relocate and the persecutor found you, that would also be important evidence.

If there are places inside your country where the persecutor cannot reach you, you can still avoid an asylum denial by showing that internal relocation is not reasonable. Such a determination is very country specific, but perhaps there is generalized violence that makes it unsafe to relocate, or maybe there are no jobs, or maybe there are cultural issues (like the single woman in Afghanistan). Some countries have laws that prevent people from relocating internally (like the rules in Kurdistan or the propiska in Russia). In other cases, a person’s age or health might make relocation impossible. Whatever the reason, try to obtain evidence in support of your claim.

All this brings us back to Mr. Cuccinelli’s latest pronouncement and his effort to block asylum seekers. He states that asylum would not be necessary for many individuals coming here “if they sought refuge within their home country, particularly given the fact that there are areas that are generally very safe within each of the countries that currently make up the bulk of our credible fear cases.” There is no factual basis for this claim, and in fact, it flies in the face of available country-condition evidence. It is also an insult to the intelligence and independence of the Asylum Officers tasked with implementing our nation’s asylum laws.

In this light, Mr. Cuccinelli’s closing words sound ominous: “The Asylum Division work is very important, and your dedication to the mission has not gone unnoticed.” Is this simply a tepid expression of Mr. Cuccinelli’s appreciation for the Asylum Officers working under him? Or–coming from one who seems determined to undercut the mission of the Asylum Division–is it a warning to those who have the temerity to do their jobs according to the law? At one time, I would have considered this a ridiculous question. These days, I am not so sure.

Continue reading

140 Comments

A Note to Readers

by Jason Dzubow

I originally began the Asylumist for several reasons: I wanted to diversify and grow my law practice; I needed an outlet to complain about the asylum system (we lawyers love to complain), and I hoped the blog would serve as a forum to discuss asylum and related issues. After 8+ years, it’s time to take stock.

When I started the Asylumist in 2010, there were already plenty of blogs related to immigration (there still are), but there was no other blog that focused on asylum (there still isn’t, as far as I know). My main interest as an attorney has always been asylum, and so I felt a blog on the subject would be a good way to grow my business in that direction. Back then, I didn’t really know what a blog was. I viewed it as the equivalent of standing on a milk crate in the town square and yelling over and over, “I’m an expert!” Eventually, I figured, people would look at me and say, “That’s the expert.”

“I’m ba-aaack!”

In a sense, I was right. To the extent that I am known professionally, people view me as an expert on asylum, and that has helped to diversify my practice. In 2010, the majority of my asylum clients came from Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Afghanistan. These days, my clients come from all over (though perhaps this is more a testament to the sorry state of the world than anything else).

From a purely business perspective, however, I cannot say that the Asylumist has been a great success. First of all, no businessperson with any sense would consider asylum law as a profession. It simply isn’t that lucrative, especially when compared to other legal specialties. And so attracting more asylum clients is not necessarily a path to Easy Street. Also, the amount of time invested in managing a blog, at least my blog, is not even remotely commensurate with the business generated. I’d probably be better off handing out flyers in the subway.

But of course, none of the asylum lawyers I know went into human rights law for the money (except for the terrible ones). We practice asylum law because we believe it helps people. It is interesting. The clients are generally wonderful, intelligent, and accomplished people. Some of us view our work as an extension of our moral or religious values. So while it is not particularly remunerative, there are plenty of rewards for people practicing asylum law.

And in that sense, I think the Asylumist has been successful. It has allowed me to be part of the conversation on asylum. It has also allowed me–and others–to air our complaints about the system. In short, I am lucky to have had the opportunity to work on this blog, and I feel I have gained professionally and personally from the time invested here. I hope it has also been useful to the readers.

With all that said, I just wanted to note some changes that have been made and that are coming. The platform I had been using for the last eight years had become obsolete, and so it was necessary to change the format of the website. I should have made these changes years ago, but I am good at procrastination and bad at change. Anyway, better late than never. Implementing the updates took some time (hence we were down for a few days), but now we are back. We’re not done. There are still kinks to be worked out, and hopefully some bling to be added. The new website should be more user friendly, more accessible to mobile devices, and hopefully more secure.

These days, more than ever, asylum seekers and their supporters need to stand strong. Morality, justice, and history are on our side. I hope to continue to do my part in this great struggle. Thank you for reading and contributing. En la lucha, Jason

Continue reading

96 Comments

What Happens When Asylum Is Granted?

by Jason Dzubow

With all the bad news related to refugees and asylum seekers, I thought it might be nice to discuss something positive: What happens when an asylum case is granted?

One of my clients celebrates her asylum grant.

The fact is, despite the best efforts of the Trump Administration, people are still winning their cases. They are winning affirmatively at the Asylum Offices, and defensively in the Immigration Courts. There are some differences between an affirmative and a defensive grant, and we’ll talk about those first.

If an applicant wins at the Asylum Office, she receives a letter indicting that asylum was granted. The date on the letter and the date of the asylum grant are usually not the same. To find the date that asylum was granted, look in the body of the letter on the first page. It will indicate that “asylum was granted on” a certain date. This is the date that matters for purposes of applying for a green card and obtaining certain government benefits.

If asylum is granted in Court, the Immigration Judge will issue an order stating that asylum is granted. If the DHS attorney appeals, the case is not over, and will have to be adjudicated by the Board of Immigration Appeals. But if DHS does not appeal (or if the BIA has already indicated that asylum must be granted), then the case is over and the applicant has asylum. There is one more step that the applicant must take in order to complete the process. The person must bring his approval order and photo ID to USCIS, which will issue an I-94 indicating that the person has asylum, and will also create a new Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”). You can learn about that process here (check the link called post-order instructions).

As soon as asylum is granted, you are eligible to work in the United States, even if you do not have an EAD (see Working in the United States). You can also get an unrestricted Social Security number by contacting the Social Security office.

A person who wins asylum can file an I-730 petition for her spouse and children. To qualify for an I-730, the marriage must have existed prior to the date that asylum was granted. For a child to benefit from an I-730, the child must have been under 21 and unmarried at the time the asylum application was filed. If the child turned 21 before the asylum case was granted, he is still eligible to benefit from the I-730. However, if the child married after the case was filed, he is not eligible to bring his own spouse and children to the U.S. through the I-730 process.

One year after asylum is granted, the alien may file for her lawful permanent residency (“LPR”) (her green card) using form I-485. We used to advise people that they could file for the green card 30 days prior to their one-year asylum anniversary, and this used to work. But then we filed a green card application early, and USCIS rejected it. Since then, we have advised our clients to wait one full year before filing for their residency. Principal asylum applicants do not generally receive a green card interview, but dependents usually do. When you receive the LPR card, it will be back-dated by one year (so if you get the card on May 21, 2018, it will indicate that you have been an LPR since May 21, 2017). You can apply for U.S. citizenship based on the earlier date listed on the card.

A person who wins asylum can obtain a Refugee Travel Document using form I-131. This document is valid for one year and is used in lieu of a passport, but there are some limitations. For example, returning to the country of feared persecution can result in termination of asylum status or lawful permanent residency (I wrote about this here). Also, not every country will accept the RTD as a travel document, so you have to check with the country’s embassy in advance.

People granted asylum may also be eligible for certain government benefits, including referrals for short-term cash and medical assistance, job development, trauma counseling, and English as a Foreign Language services. The Office of Refugee Resettlement has a state-by-state collection of agencies that can help with these and other services (once you identify agencies near you, you have to contact them directly). For those granted asylum affirmatively, the Asylum Office sometimes holds meetings to explain the benefits available to asylum seekers. You would have to ask your local Asylum Office about that. Be aware that after the case is granted, you have a very limited time to access most services, and so the sooner you reach out to provider organizations, the better.

Asylees are eligible to attend university (asylum applicants who have an EAD are also eligible to attend most universities). In many cases, universities offer in-state tuition to people with asylum. There may also be scholarships available. You would have to reach out directly to the university to learn more about tuition discounts and scholarship money.

Asylees also have certain legal obligations. If you are a male asylee (or a dependent) between the ages of 18 and 26, you must register for Selective Service. LPRs and citizens are also required to register. Also, like everyone else, asylees have to pay taxes and follow the law.

Finally, asylees and LPRs must inform USCIS whenever they move to a new address. You are required to do this within 10 days of the move. You can notify USCIS of your new address by mailing them form AR-11 or filing it electronically. Either way, keep evidence that you filed the change of address form.

Especially these days, I view every asylum win not only as a victory for the individual, but also as a victory for our country. Whether our leadership understands it or not, our nation is defined in large part by how we treat those coming to us for refuge. So if you have been granted asylum in the U.S., thank you for still believing in the American Dream–it helps the rest of us keep believing as well. And of course, Welcome to the USA!

Continue reading

444 Comments

The One Year Bar and LGBT Asylum Claims

by Jason Dzubow

Richard Kelley is the  Legal Program Coordinator for DC Center Global, an organization focused on supporting LGBTQI asylum seekers in Washington, DC. Most recently, Richard was a Senior Associate at the DC Affordable Law Firm, practicing immigration and family law. He is currently an associate at DLA Piper (USA). His full biography can be found here. 

Contact Richard Kelley at richardkelley@thedccenter.org.

Richard Kelley

In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which fundamentally changed the landscape of asylum law.  Most notably, IIRIRA created a new requirement that those entering the country had to apply for asylum within one year of arriving in the United States. This one-year bar has created exceptional challenges for individuals seeking asylum and has had a notable impact on LGBTQI asylum seekers in particular.

LGBTQI asylum seekers may miss this rigid one year deadline for several reasons: Insecurity about, discomfort with, or lack of openness about their identity; fear of being identified as LGBTQI or being “outed” as LGBTQI in their home country or in the immigrant diaspora within the United States; immense emotional and psychological trauma caused by experiences related to their LGBTQI status; or even lack of awareness that they can pursue asylum based on LGBTQI status.  Individuals can often find themselves still exploring whether to apply for asylum based on sexual orientation even after one year has passed.

Those asylum seekers who are aware of the one-year bar may not know that it is not absolute. There are two ways that an asylum seeker can overcome the one year bar to asylum: (1) the existence of a changed circumstance which materially affects the applicant’s eligibility for asylum, or (2) an extraordinary circumstance related to the delay in filing the application within the first year of entry. If an asylum seeker is able to demonstrate that he or she falls into one of these two exceptions “to the satisfaction of the asylum officer,” the applicant must then show that the application was filed within a “reasonable period of time” after the changed or extraordinary circumstance. See INA § 208(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a).

What can be a change in circumstance?

If asylum seekers can show “the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum,” then they will only have to show that they applied within a reasonable period of time after the change in circumstance. The regulations indicate that a change in circumstance may include changes in conditions of the home country; changes in the applicant’s circumstances (including changes in applicable U.S. law and activities the applicant becomes involved in outside the country of feared persecution); or, if the applicant is a dependent in another person’s pending asylum application, the loss of the spousal or parent-child relationship. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(4).

For LGBTQI asylum seekers, this can take many forms. For example, if an asylum seeker’s home country recently passed legislation that criminalized same-sex relationships or same-sex advocacy, or otherwise targets LGBTQI individuals, this could qualify as a change in circumstance. Additionally, a major change in how the country, including its police force, treats LGBTQI individuals could be a change in conditions at home. Unfortunately, many countries have had discriminatory laws on the books for years, even decades. Some laws banning same-sex relationships are holdovers from colonial rule. Much more likely for asylum seekers is a change in personal circumstances. Potential changes in circumstance could include being “outed” as LGBTQI at home, getting actively involved in LGBTQI advocacy groups, marrying a same-sex partner, or for transgender individuals, going through transition efforts, particularly gender-affirming surgery. The important thing for asylum seekers to understand is that it is critical to explain how this change in circumstance materially affects one’s eligibility for asylum. Or stated differently, why does this new event create a reasonable fear of persecution that did not exist prior to the event occurring?

What might be an extraordinary circumstance?

A second option for asylum seekers who are not applying within one year of their entry into the United States is to demonstrate that there is an extraordinary circumstance related to the delay in filing the application. The regulations suggest several potential extraordinary circumstances that could justify a delay in filing, including serious illness or mental or physical disability, legal disability, ineffective assistance of counsel, maintenance of Temporary Protected Status or another lawful status, or a technical error. This list provided in the regulations, like the list of changes in circumstance, is not exhaustive. See 8 CFR §208.4(a)(5).

LGBTQI asylum seekers can find themselves in situations where they may be able to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances related to their delay in filing. Perhaps the biggest group of asylum seekers who miss the one-year deadline are individuals who come to the United States on student visas or other temporary visas, and during their time in the U.S. either come out publicly or engage in advocacy around LGBTQI issues that subsequently creates a reasonable fear of returning home. In addition, an individual who enters the country as a minor (under the age of 18) may be able to apply because of legal disability.

Many LGBTQI asylum seekers may also have experienced trauma in their home country due to their identity. Some advocates have argued successfully that this is an extraordinary circumstance that justifies an application outside of the first year. Matter of J-A-, A XXX-XXX-234 (Arlington Immigration Court, April 27, 2012), was an important step forward in this area. The advocates in Matter of J-A- successfully argued that extreme sexual and physical violence against J-A- because of his sexual orientation caused extreme and chronic PTSD, which justified his late application (nearly 10 years after his entry into the United States).  This, combined with the fact that he entered the U.S. as a legal minor, led Judge Bryant of the Arlington Immigration Court to conclude that there was an extraordinary circumstance justifying the late filing. But it is important to note that arguments relying on PTSD or other mental health conditions are not always successful. However, rulings like the one in Matter of J-A- give hope that the law might actually catch up with the reality of the psychological impact caused by severe persecution based on LGBTQI identity. Again, the important thing for asylum seekers to focus on here is how the extraordinary circumstance directly caused the delay in filing.

What is a reasonable period of time?

If asylum seekers are able to show that there has been a change in circumstance or an extraordinary circumstance, they are permitted to file the asylum application within a reasonable period of time.  There is no specified reasonable time in IIRIRA, but the simple answer is that one should file as soon as possible.

So, while the one year bar can be concerning to asylum seekers and has been particularly harmful to LGBTQI asylum seekers, there is hope.  While other options, like Withholding of Removal, may be available to individuals outside the one year bar, it is incumbent upon asylum seekers and advocates to make every effort to help the adjudicator understand the complexities faced by the LGBTQI community and to build effective justifications for filing for asylum outside the one-year period. The exceptions provide some hope to an otherwise devastating change in the immigration law.

Continue reading

149 Comments

The One-Year Asylum Filing Deadline and What to Do About It

by Jason Dzubow

The law requires that people who wish to seek asylum in the United States file their applications within one year of arriving here. See INA § 208(a)(2)(B). Those who fail to timely file are barred from asylum unless they meet an exception to the rule (they may still qualify for other—lesser—humanitarian benefits such as Withholding of Removal and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture).

If you arrived in the U.S. on this day, you are still eligible to apply for asylum, even if it seems like a hundred years ago.

So why do we have this rule? And what are the exceptions?

Congress created the one-year bar in 1996. Its ostensible purpose is to prevent fraud. If you really fear return to your home country, the theory goes, one year should be enough time to figure things out and get your application filed.

For most people, I suppose that this is true—they can ask questions, find help, and file for asylum within a year. But this is easier for some than for others. People who are less educated, people whose life experiences have taught them to mistrust and avoid authority, people who are isolated and socially disconnected, people who are depressed; such people might have a harder time with the one-year bar (and of course, many of these characteristics are common among asylum seekers). Others will have an easier time: Well-educated people, people who speak English, people who have a certain level of self-confidence, and people who are engaged with the community.

There are also certain populations that seem to have difficulty with the one-year rule. At least in my experience, many LGBT asylum cases were filed after the one-year period. I suspect there are several reasons for this. For one, an immigrant’s primary connection to mainstream America is her community in the U.S. But if she is afraid to reveal her sexuality to her countrymen living here, and she cannot get their help with the asylum process, she may be unable to file on time. Also, there is the coming-out process itself. People in certain countries may not have even conceptualized themselves as gay, and so the process of accepting their own sexuality, telling others, and then applying for asylum may be lengthy and difficult.

Asylum seekers like those discussed above are sometimes blocked by the one-year rule, but in these cases, the rule is not preventing fraud; it is harming bona fide applicants.

Where the rule seems more likely to achieve its intended purpose is the case of the alien who has spent years in the United States without seeking asylum, and now finds himself in removal proceedings. Such aliens often file for asylum as a last-ditch effort to remain in the U.S. (or at least delay their deportation). Many people from Mexico and Central America are in this position, and the one-year rule often blocks them from obtaining asylum (in addition, such applicants often fear harm from criminals; this type of harm does not fit easily within the asylum framework and contributes to the high denial rate for such cases).

Although there may be situations where the one-year bar prevents fraud, the vast majority of immigration lawyers—including this one—think it does little to block fake cases, and often times prevents legitimate asylum seekers from obtaining the protection they need. In short, we hate this rule, and if I ever become king, we will find other, more effective ways, to fight fraud. Until then, however, we have to live with it.

So for those who have missed the one-year filing deadline, what to do?

There are two exceptions to the one-year rule: Changed circumstances and extraordinary circumstances. See INA § 208(a)(2)(D). If you meet either of these exceptions, you may still be eligible for asylum. Federal regulations flesh out the meaning of these concepts. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.4(a)(4) & (5). First, changed circumstances–

(4)(i) The term “changed circumstances” … refer to circumstances materially affecting the applicant’s eligibility for asylum. They may include, but are not limited to: (A) Changes in conditions in the applicant’s country of nationality or, if the applicant is stateless, country of last habitual residence; (B) Changes in the applicant’s circumstances that materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum, including changes in applicable U.S. law and activities the applicant becomes involved in outside the country of feared persecution that place the applicant at risk; or (C) In the case of an alien who had previously been included as a dependent in another alien’s pending asylum application, the loss of the spousal or parent-child relationship to the principal applicant through marriage, divorce, death, or attainment of age 21.

(ii) The applicant shall file an asylum application within a reasonable period given those “changed circumstances.” If the applicant can establish that he or she did not become aware of the changed circumstances until after they occurred, such delayed awareness shall be taken into account in determining what constitutes a “reasonable period.”

It is a bit unclear how long this “reasonable period” is. A few months is probably (but no guarantee) ok, but six months is probably too long. So if there are changed circumstances in your case, the sooner you file for asylum, the better.

The regulations also define extraordinary circumstances–

(5) The term “extraordinary circumstances” … shall refer to events or factors directly related to the failure to meet the 1-year deadline. Such circumstances may excuse the failure to file within the 1-year period as long as the alien filed the application within a reasonable period given those circumstances. The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish… that the circumstances were not intentionally created by the alien through his or her own action or inaction, that those circumstances were directly related to the alien’s failure to file the application within the 1-year period, and that the delay was reasonable under the circumstances. Those circumstances may include but are not limited to:

(i) Serious illness or mental or physical disability, including any effects of persecution or violent harm suffered in the past, during the 1-year period after arrival;

(ii) Legal disability (e.g., the applicant was an unaccompanied minor or suffered from a mental impairment) during the 1-year period after arrival;

(iii) Ineffective assistance of counsel….

(iv) The applicant maintained Temporary Protected Status, lawful immigrant or nonimmigrant status, or was given parole, until a reasonable period before the filing of the asylum application;

(v) The applicant filed an asylum application prior to the expiration of the 1-year deadline, but that application was rejected by the Service as not properly filed, was returned to the applicant for corrections, and was refiled within a reasonable period thereafter; and

(vi) The death or serious illness or incapacity of the applicant’s legal representative or a member of the applicant’s immediate family.

Again, if you have extraordinary circumstances, you must file within a “reasonable period.” How long you have to file has not been clearly defined, so the sooner you file, the safer you will be in terms of the one-year bar.

When it comes to asylum, the best bet is to file within one year of arrival. But if you have missed that deadline, there are exceptions to the rule. These exceptions can be tricky, and so it would probably be wise to talk to a lawyer if you are filing late. It is always a shame when a strong asylum case is ruined by a one-year issue. Keep this deadline (emphasis on “dead”) in mind, and file on time if you can.

Continue reading

209 Comments

On the Benefits of Having a Lawyer

by Jason Dzubow

A recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (“Immigrants Need Better Protection–From Their Lawyers” by Professor Benjamin Edwards) laments the poor quality of immigration attorneys, and postulates that as a group, “the private immigration bar now contains the worst lawyers in all of law.”

It’s easy to know which barber to choose (hint: Barber A), but finding a good immigration lawyer can be more challenging.

The author’s primary solution to the problem of “incompetent” and “predatory” lawyers is to track the success rate of each attorney and then make that information public. In this way, potential customers (i.e., people being deported) can make more informed decisions about their choice of counsel.

Among practicing lawyers, Prof. Edwards’s solution was largely panned as unworkable, ivory-tower thinking. While I generally agree that there is a problem (which I’ve written about in a charmingly-titled piece called, Do Immigration Lawyers Suck?), I also agree with my colleagues that Prof. Edwards’s solution is unworkable (if you’re interested in why it is unworkable, here are some thoughts from Jennifer Minear at AILA).

While some immigration lawyers are less-than qualified for their jobs, it is none-the-less true that having a lawyer for an asylum case significantly increases the likelihood of a good outcome.

A new report from TRAC Immigration provides some specific data about asylum cases and representation. The report breaks down the statistics by country, which is quite helpful, as asylum seekers can look for their country, get a sense for how many of their landsmen are represented, and see the success rate for represented and unrepresented applicants. The report covers Immigration Court cases only (from FY 2012 to FY 2017), and does not include cases at the Asylum Office.

The bottom line is this: For almost all countries, asylum applicants with lawyers are two to four times more likely to win their cases in court, as compared to unrepresented applicants from the same country. There are, of course, some caveats.

One is that, people with good cases are more likely to have attorneys. This is because people with money, educated people, and people who speak English all have an advantage navigating the U.S. immigration system. Such people are more likely to find a lawyer, and they are also more able to present their cases. People who are detained, who are not educated, and who do not speak English will have a harder time presenting their cases, and will also be less able to obtain representation. In that sense, I think the statistics exaggerate the benefits of having an attorney.

But even considering these socio-economic factors, the difference between represented and unrepresented applicants is pretty significant, and in the face of these statistics, it’s hard to argue that lawyers don’t help, Prof. Edwards not-with-standing.

What’s also interesting here is that lawyers provide a multiplier effect on the likelihood of winning. So, for example, an unrepresented case from China has about a 21% chance of success, while a represented case has about an 82% chance of success—a difference of almost four times. And, of course, 82% is a lot better than 21%. A case from El Salvador, on the other hand, has only about a 4% chance of winning without a lawyer, but has almost a 17% chance for success with a lawyer—again, a difference of four times, but in absolute terms, the difference of 4% versus 17% is a lot less significant than 21% versus 82%. Put another way, when the average Chinese applicant hires an attorney for her asylum case, she appears to be getting a lot more for her money than the average Salvadoran applicant.

Why should this be? Why should a lawyer multiply the chances of winning rather than increase the likelihood of victory arithmetically by, say, 10 percentage points across the board (so that the Chinese applicant would go from a 21% chance of success to 31%, and the grant rate for Salvadorans would increase from 4% to 14%)?

The short answer is that I don’t know. Maybe one explanation is that asylum seekers from certain countries present claims that more easily fit within the legal parameters of our asylum system. So cases from China—which often involve political or religious persecution—are more amenable to a grant than cases from El Salvador, which often involve a fear of harm from criminals. Our asylum law quite clearly protects people fleeing religious or political persecution, but it offers little for people fleeing crime. Under this theory, lawyers representing Chinese applicants can help ensure that their cases are presented in a manner that meets the requirements for asylum. It is more difficult to do this for Salvadorans. Or put in more classic terms, even a great lawyer can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.

Another interesting tidbit from the TRAC numbers is the level of representation in each community. Almost 96% of Chinese applicants had attorneys. Contrast that with Salvadorans, who were represented in only about 73% of cases. Looking at the top 10 source countries for asylum seekers, Haiti had the lowest rate of representation—only about 56% of Haitian asylum seekers had lawyers.

Finally, while it may be somewhat early to discuss trends since President Trump took the helm, the numbers for FY 2017 show an increase in the absolute number of asylum cases decided by Immigration Courts (from 22,312 in FY 2016 to 30,179 in FY 2017) and in the percentage of asylum cases denied (from 56.5% denied in FY 2016 to 61.8% denied in FY 2017). While these numbers are not encouraging, the upward trend in asylum denial rates actually began in FY 2012, under President Obama (denial rates have steadily risen from 44.5% in FY 2012 to 61.8% today).

So what are asylum seekers to make of all this? It seems to me that the most important take-away is that a lawyer in court can significantly increase the likelihood of success, as long as that lawyer is competent and makes an effort to help you with your case. I’ve written previously about the cost of a lawyer, and what the lawyer should do for you. I’ve also written about how to find a free lawyer if you cannot afford to hire one. If you are careful, if you ask questions, and if you make an effort to find an effective attorney, you can greatly increase the possibility of winning your asylum case in court.

Continue reading

196 Comments

Asylum for Witches

by Jason Dzubow

Just in time for Halloween, the Witchcraft & Human Rights Information Network (“WHRIN”) has released a report called “Witchcraft Accusations and Persecution; Muti Murders and Human Sacrifice.” The report was prepared for the United Nations Expert Workshop on Witchcraft and Human Rights, which was held last month, and it discusses the wide-spread and under-reported human rights problems related to witchcraft and other harmful traditional practices. From the WHRIN report–

Persecution.

In numerous countries around the world, harmful witchcraft related beliefs and practices have resulted in serious violations of human rights including, beatings, banishment, cutting of body parts, and amputation of limbs, torture and murder. Women, children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities, such as persons with albinism, are particularly vulnerable. Despite the seriousness of these human rights abuses, there is often no robust state led response.

The report indicates that the “exact numbers of victims of such abuses is unknown and is widely believed to be underreported.” “At the very least,” the report continues, “it is believed that there are thousands of cases of people accused of witchcraft each year globally, often with fatal consequences, and others are mutilated and killed for witchcraft-related rituals.” The number of cases—and the level of violence against victims–seems to be rising, and no area of the world is immune, though most of the documented cases are found in India (120 reported cases in 2016), Nigeria (67 cases), Zimbabwe (29), and South Africa (28).

This is all very sobering, and sad. In my work, I have represented a number of victims of traditional practices who have filed for asylum in the United States. One memorable case involved a young man from Rwanda who was gay. His family decided that he was possessed by demons, and so they had him kidnapped and held in a rural area where he was subject to a three-week exorcism ritual by some type of priest. The ritual involved beatings and starvation, among other things. We argued that all this amounted to past persecution on account of a particular social group—gay people. The government accepted our argument and approved the man’s application for asylum.

The success of our case was due, perhaps, to the fact that our client easily fit within a protected category for purposes of asylum (there are five protected categories—race, religion, nationality, political opinion, and particular social group, and under U.S. law, it is well-established that LGBT individuals can constitute a particular social group; unless a case fits within a protected category, asylum will be denied). Not all victims of witchcraft-related persecution fit so neatly into the asylum scheme, as the WHRIN report makes plain—

Those accused of witchcraft, or at risk of such accusations, are not a well-recognised vulnerable group [under the asylum law], and they do not accrue specially recognised rights as such. They do, however, benefit from human rights protections which are available to all people. Those who face persecution in this way may flee and seek protection in other countries, but their situation is precarious even in exile.

The WHRIN report primarily discusses British law, but asylum applicants in the U.S. could face a similar problem. I have not seen a case where “witches” or “people accused of witchcraft” has been found to be a particular social group (“PSG”) for purposes of asylum, but it seems that a strong argument could be made in favor of such a PSG. Persecution of “witches” might also be couched in terms of imputed religion—maybe the persecutors view the alleged witch in religious terms and would harm her for that reason. If there is an ethnic or racial component to the persecution, that might also allow the applicant’s case to fit into a protected category.

Besides witchcraft, the WHRIN report discusses other harmful traditional practices: Human sacrifice and murder for body parts, which are used in certain magic rituals (sometime called Muti murder). People with albinism are particularly vulnerable to such attacks (I wrote about that here), and they would likely constitute a PSG under U.S. asylum law. But other people targeted in this way might not easily fit into a PSG.

To win asylum, the applicant must show that she faces harm “on account of” a characteristic that the applicant herself possess (for example, her race) or on a characteristic that the persecutor “imputes” to the victim (for example, maybe the persecutor incorrectly believes the applicant is a government opponent and seeks to harm her for that reason). In the case of some traditional practice, the victim may not be able to show that the harm is “on account of” a characteristic or an imputed characteristic, and then asylum would be denied. In our exorcism case, for example, we had a relatively easy job, since our client was gay and was harmed due to his sexual orientation. But what if he was not gay and he was being “exorcised” for some other reason–maybe he was an unruly child and his parents wanted to “cure” him? Such a case would present a real challenge under U.S. asylum law.

Fortunately, there are some resources available. The WHRIN is the obvious starting point. The Forced Migration Current Awareness blog also has a list of resources, and UNHCR has a comprehensive report about witchcraft accusations against children. Given the severity of the harm and the likelihood that the problem is spreading, it seems to me that more work needs to be done in this area. The recent attention from the UN is a good start. Hopefully, we will see those efforts continued and expanded.

Continue reading

176 Comments

The Attorney General’s Jaundiced–and Inaccurate–View of Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

In a speech last week to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (the office that administers the nation’s immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals), Attorney General and living Confederate Civil War monument, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, set out his views on the asylum system, asylum seekers, and immigration attorneys.

Jeff Sessions speaks to an audience at the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

Sad to say, Mr. Sessions described the asylum system in largely negative terms, and said not a word about the benefits that our country derives from offering asylum.

While he views our asylum policy as “generous,” and designed to “protect those who, through no fault of their own, cannot co-exist in their home country no matter where they go because of persecution based on fundamental things like their religion or nationality,” Mr. Sessions feels that our generosity is being “abused” and that “smart attorneys have exploited loopholes in the law, court rulings, and lack of resources to substantially undermine the intent of Congress.”

Mr. Sessions also lambasts “dirty immigration lawyers who are encouraging their otherwise unlawfully present clients to make false claims of asylum providing them with the magic words needed to trigger the credible fear process.”

Indeed, Mr. Sessions believes that our asylum system is “subject to rampant abuse and fraud.” Because the system is “overloaded with fake claims, it cannot deal effectively with just claims.”

First, it’s quite sad that our nation’s chief law enforcement officer would have such a jaundiced view of asylum. The idea that asylum is merely a generous benefit we offer to refugees, and that we receive nothing in return, is simply false. I’ve written about this point before, but it bears repeating. Asylum was created during the Cold War as a tool against the Soviet Union. We offered refuge to people fleeing Communism, and each person who defected to the West served as a testament to our system’s superiority over our adversary.

Now that the Cold War has ended, asylum still serves our strategic interests. It demonstrates our commitment to those who support and work for the values we believe in. It is tangible evidence that America stands with our friends. It gives our allies confidence that we will not let them down when times become tough. It shows that our foundational principles–free speech, religious liberty, equality, rule of law–are not empty words, but are ideals we actually stand behind.

And of course, there are the asylees themselves, who contribute to our country with their energy, enthusiasm, and patriotism, often born of their experience living in places that are not safe, and that are not free.

None of this came up during Mr. Sessions’s talk. Perhaps he does not know how our nation has benefited from the asylum system. Or maybe he doesn’t care. Or–what I suspect–he views asylum seekers as a threat to our security and a challenge to our country’s (Christian and Caucasian) culture.

The shame of it is that Mr. Sessions is demonstrably wrong on several points, and so possibly he reached his conclusions about asylum based on incorrect information.

The most obvious error is his claims that “dirty immigration lawyers… are encouraging their otherwise unlawfully present clients to make false claims of asylum providing them with the magic words needed to trigger the credible fear process.” Aliens who are “unlawfully present” in the U.S. are not subject to the credible fear process. That process is generally reserved for aliens arriving at the border who ask for asylum. Such applicants undergo a credible fear interview, which is an initial evaluation of eligibility for asylum. While this may be a technical point, Mr. Sessions raised the issue in a talk to EOIR, and so his audience presumably understands how the system works. That Mr. Sessions would make such a basic mistake in a speech to people who know better, demonstrates his ignorance of the subject matter (or at least the ignorance of his speech writers), and casts doubt on his over-all understanding of the asylum system.

Mr. Sessions also says that our asylum system is “overloaded with fake claims.” But how does he know this? And what exactly is a fake claim? In recent years, something like 40 to 50% of asylum cases have been granted. Are all those adjudicators being fooled? And what about denied cases? Are they all worthy of denial? There is, of course, anecdotal evidence of fraud—and in his talk, Mr. Sessions cites a few examples of “dirty” attorneys and applicants. But a few anecdotes does not compel a conclusion that the entire system is “subject to rampant abuse and fraud.” I can point to anecdotes as well. I’ve seen cases granted that I suspected were false, but I’ve also seen cases denied that were pretty clearly grant-worthy. While I do think we need to remain vigilant for fraud, I have not seen evidence to support the type of wide-spread fraud referenced by the Attorney General.

Finally, Mr. Sessions opines that “smart attorneys have exploited loopholes in the law, court rulings, and lack of resources to substantially undermine the intent of Congress.” So court rulings undermine the intent of Congress? Any attorney who makes such a statement casts doubt on that lawyer’s competence and devotion to the rule of law, but when the Attorney General says it, we have real cause for concern. Thousands of federal court rulings—including from the U.S. Supreme Court—have interpreted our nation’s immigration laws (and all our other laws too). That is what courts do, and that is how the intent of Congress is interpreted and implemented in real-world situations. Attorneys who rely on court decisions are not “exploit[ing] loopholes in the law,” we are following the law.

These are all pretty basic points, and it strikes me that when it comes to asylum, Mr. Sessions doesn’t get it. He seems not to understand the role of Congress, the courts, and lawyers in the asylum process. And he certainly doesn’t understand the benefits our country receives from the asylum system.

I’ve often said that President Trump’s maliciousness is tempered by his incompetence. With Attorney General Sessions, it is the opposite: His maliciousness is exacerbated by his incompetence. And I fear that asylum seekers–and our country’s devotion to the rule of law–will suffer because of it.

 

Continue reading

131 Comments

Advance Parole: Overseas Travel for Asylum Seekers

by Jason Dzubow

When government scientists invented Advance Parole (“AP”), they were not thinking about asylum seekers. Even today, if you look at the instructions to form I-131, the form used to apply for AP, you’ll find nary a word about asylum seekers (though asylees—people already granted asylum—can apply for a Refugee Travel Document using the same form). But fear not: People who have filed affirmatively for asylum and who are waiting for their interview can file for AP in order to travel abroad and return while their case is pending.

If your relative has a serious illness (or thinks he does), it may be enough for AP.

First, a brief word about asylum seekers who are not eligible to travel and return using AP. People who are in removal proceedings (i.e., in Immigration Court) cannot leave the U.S. and return, even if they have AP. If you are in removal proceedings, it means the government is trying to deport you, and if you leave, you are considered to have deported yourself. Thus, even if you apply for AP and receive the travel document, if you leave the United States, you will be deported, and thus barred from return. And yes, I am sure that there is a story about your third cousin’s best friend who was in Immigration Court, and who left and returned using AP. To that, I say: Talk to your cousin’s friend’s lawyer (and if you learn something, let me know!). My opinion is that if you are in removal proceedings and you leave the U.S., either you won’t get back here at all, or you will be detained upon arrival.

Another group that may be ineligible to travel using AP are J-1 visa holders subject to the pesky two-year home residency requirement. There are more people like this than you might imagine, and for such people, I recommend you talk to a lawyer about AP. Asylum basically “erases” the home residency requirement, but it is unclear (at least to me) whether this will work for purposes of AP while the asylum application is still pending.

Also, there was a group of people who were ineligible for AP, but who are now eligible. It is people who have six months or more of “unlawful presence.” If a person remains in the U.S. after her period of stay ends, she accrues unlawful presence (you stop accruing unlawful presence once you file for asylum). If she accrues six months of unlawful presence and leaves, she is barred from returning for three years. If she has one year or more of unlawful presence and then leaves, she cannot return for 10 years. Prior to 2012, if a person had six or more months of unlawful presence and left, she could not return to the U.S., even with AP. However, a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals changed the rule, and so now, even if you have unlawful presence, you can leave the U.S. and return using Advance Parole. Thank you BIA!

There might be other people who are also ineligible to travel–people with criminal convictions or prior removal/deportation orders, for example. If you are not sure, you should certainly talk to a lawyer before applying for AP or traveling.

Next, let’s talk about what AP is and is not. If you get AP, you will receive a piece of paper with your photo on it. This paper works like a U.S. visa. It allows you to board the plane (or boat, if, like me, you hate flying), and pass through customs once you arrive at the port of entry. AP is not a passport or a Refugee Travel Document. You cannot use it to go to other countries or as a form of ID. If you travel with AP, you also need a passport. Keep in mind that traveling with a passport from a country where you fear persecution can raise questions at the asylum interview about why you would “avail” yourself of the protection of your country by using its passport. You should be prepared to respond to such questions, with evidence, during your interview.

So how do you apply for AP? Use form I-131. This one magic form can be used for all sorts of different applications: AP, Refugee Travel Document, DACA (at least for the next couple weeks), humanitarian parole. If you are applying for AP, complete only the portions of the form that apply to Advance Parole. You need to include evidence of a pending asylum case (receipts, biometrics notice), two passport-size photos, a copy of your passport or other government-issued photo ID (like an EAD card), and the filing fee (a whopping $575.00 as of this writing).

Also, you need to demonstrate a humanitarian need for the travel. It is not enough that you simply want to travel. A humanitarian reason might be that you are traveling to receive medical treatment or going to visit a seriously ill relative. It might also be because you are attending a funeral for a close relative. We have sought AP for people who needed to travel for work or education, though that was pre-Trump, and I would not feel particularly optimistic about such an application today.

To demonstrate a humanitarian need for AP, you need to provide a written explanation for the travel. You also need to provide evidence: A letter from the doctor, in the case of medical travel, or a death certificate if you are traveling for a funeral. If you are trying to travel for work or education, you need a letter from your job or school, plus an explanation of why the travel is “humanitarian.” In addition, if you are traveling to visit a sick relative, provide proof of the relationship, such as birth or marriage certificates connecting you to your relative.

On the form I-131, you need to state the dates of proposed travel. Don’t make the date too soon, or USCIS will not be able to process the paperwork before your travel date, and then they will send a request for evidence asking you to explain whether you still plan to travel since your departure date passed before AP was approved.

Also, it may be possible to expedite a request for AP, or even to get AP on an emergency basis, though you can bet that the bureaucrats at USCIS will not make the process easy. For more information about such requests, see the USCIS Ombudsman webpage.

Finally, and this is important, if you are an asylum seeker and you use AP to visit your home country, it will very likely cause your asylum case to be denied. Indeed, unless you can demonstrate “compelling reasons” for returning to your country, your asylum application will be deemed abandoned by the return trip. You can learn more about that here.

So there you have it. Most lawyers–including this one–discourage our clients from traveling with AP. There is always a risk when you leave the U.S. You might have trouble boarding a return flight. You could be detained upon arrival in the United States. Our capricious President might issue a new travel ban. But so far (knock on wood), we have not had any problems for our clients who traveled using AP. I do think it is better to stay in the country while your asylum application is pending, but given the long waits, some people must travel. If so, at least AP gives most people that option.

Continue reading

550 Comments

The BIA on Firm Resettlement

by Jason Dzubow

One of my professional goals in life is to get a published decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). It won’t be easy–the Board publishes only about one case out of every 1,000 (I wrote about this problem in a blog post called, The Unbearable Lightness of BIA-ing). If the Board could publish more cases, it would provide better guidance to the nation’s Immigration Judges and would probably result in more consistency across the country. Alas, it seems unlikely that the BIA will take my suggestion anytime soon.

I did have a recent case that I thought might stand a chance of publication. As far as I know, it was an issue of first impression (meaning that there are no other published cases discussing the same topic). It is also a fairly common issue, so some guidance from the Board would have been appropriate. The bad news is that my dreams of publishing glory have been shattered, as the Board issued an unpublished decision in my case. But the good news is, we won. And perhaps our unpublished victory might be helpful to others who are in a similar situation.

Unlike published BIA decisions, unpublished decisions are not binding on Immigration Judges. However, they are “persuasive,” meaning that if you can find an unpublished case on point, you can submit it to the Judge, who will hopefully consider it. The Executive Office for Immigration Review (the office that administers the BIA and the Immigration Courts) does not release unpublished decisions, but fortunately, there is a sort-of underground network led by the legendary Dan Kowalski, where attorneys can submit their unpublished decisions and make them available to others.

My case centered on a legal construct called “firm resettlement.” An alien who has been “firmly resettled” in a third country is ineligible for asylum. See INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(2)(vi). My client’s husband had been a high-ranking member of his country’s government. When the government turned against him, he and the rest of the family fled to a neighboring country, which granted the family asylum–hence, they were firmly resettled in a third country. As a result of being firmly resettled, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied asylum, but granted Withholding of Removal as to the home country, and ordered my client and her children deported to the third country.

During the pendency of the BIA appeal, the home government assassinated my client’s husband while he was residing in the third country. After the assassination, DHS agreed that the case should be remanded to the IJ.

On remand, we presented evidence that my client could not return to the third country, as she no longer had any status there. We also presented evidence that it was no longer safe for her in the third country.

DHS argued that even if she could not return to the third country, she had been firmly resettled there, and that she was thus barred from asylum. The lawyer described firm resettlement as a door. Once you pass through it, you are forever barred from asylum. When you read the case law (and the primary case on this point is Matter of A-G-G-, 25 I&N Dec. 486 (BIA 2011)), the government’s argument is not unreasonable. Though, in fact, while Matter of A-G-G- lays out a framework for the firm resettlement analysis, it does not cover the situation in our case, where the country of firm resettlement somehow becomes unsafe.

Ultimately, the BIA accepted one of several arguments we presented. The Board held:

The intent of the firm resettlement bar is to disqualify asylum applicants who have previously found another country of refuge, not another country in which he or she faces a danger of persecution…. Given respondent’s situation with regard to [the third country], we conclude that, even assuming she otherwise would be viewed as having firmly resettled in that country, she is not barred from asylum.

Id. (emphasis in original). Thus, the Board went beyond the analysis of Matter of A-G-G- and looked to the intent of the firm resettlement bar. The intent, the BIA says, was only to bar “aliens who had already found shelter and begun new lives in other countries.” Id. (emphasis in original) (citing Rosenberg v. Yee Chien Woo, 402 U.S. 49, 56 (1971)).

It seems to me that the Board’s emphasis on the intent of the bar is significant. If you only read the firm resettlement bar (INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(2)(vi)) and Matter of A-G-G-, you could reasonably conclude–like the DHS attorney and the IJ in my case–that once a person is firmly resettled, she is forever barred from asylum. But that is not the conclusion the Board has now reached.

I am glad for the result and for my clients, but I am disappointed that the BIA chose not to publish this decision. The issue that my clients faced–where the country of resettlement is unsafe–is not uncommon. A number of my clients have faced similar situations, and I suspect that they are not unique. A published decision would have helped clarify matters and provided better guidance to our country’s Immigration Judges.

Maybe I am asking for too much. Maybe I should just be happy with what we got. Maybe I am being a big jerk for looking this gift horse in the mouth. But I can’t help but think that if the BIA would publish more decisions–especially in cases where there is no existing precedent–our Immigration Court system would be more consistent and more efficient. And so while I am thankful that we received a good decision from the Board in this particular case, I am also thinking about how much more good the Board could do if it made a concerted effort to fulfill its role as “the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws,” and if it would publish more cases.

Continue reading

80 Comments