Asylum for Nazis?

by Jason Dzubow

The Moscow Times reports on a mixed martial arts champion and neo-Nazi who fled Russia and is now seeking asylum in Norway.  Vyacheslav Datsik escaped from a psychiatric facility in St. Petersburg and made his way to Norway, where he was arrested on suspicion of violating the country’s law on gun ownership and having possible links to organized crime.  Mr. Datsik’s asylum case is pending, but apparently it is becoming more difficult for Russians to obtain asylum in Norway, and given his checkered history, Mr. Datsik might have a difficult time gaining asylum.

In the U.S., I know of two reported neo-Nazi asylum cases in the last couple years.  In July 2008, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle were convicted of publishing “race-hate” by the Leeds Crown Court in England.  After receiving bail, the two men fled the UK for Los Angeles.  On arrival at LAX, immigration officials took the two men–now dubbed the “heretical two”— into custody.  The men filed for political asylum in the United States. 

The Heretical Two

The heretical two believe that their government is unjustly curtailing their right to freedom of speech.  Indeed, many European governments—in particular Germany—have made neo-Nazi activities and Holocaust denial illegal.

Claims for asylum by European neo-Nazis raise some interesting questions.  For one, can a person receive asylum in the United States for hate speech that is illegal in his home country?  Such speech would be legal in the United States, but can be punished by jail time in Europe.  Arresting people for hate speech certainly satisfies the requirement under U.S. asylum law that a person be targeted “on account of” political opinion.  Whether or not the government action against the individual rises to the level of “persecution” might be a more difficult case to make.  But recently, an Immigration Judge granted asylum to some German home schoolers who faced “persecution” because they refused to send their children to public school (the DHS appeal of this decision is currently pending).  If home schoolers face persecution (i.e., jail) in Germany, then perhaps neo-Nazis in Europe face persecution as well. 

Whether European neo-Nazis should receive asylum also raises questions about the purpose of asylum.  Our asylum laws, to some extent, reflect our values.  We grant asylum to Chinese citizens who face coercive population control measures even though such measures are deemed necessary—even crucial—by the Chinese government.  Nevertheless, we have decided that such government intervention into private life is so unacceptable that it is worthy of an asylum grant.  Do we think that people arrested for political statements should be granted asylum?  Does the imprisonment of such people rise to the level of persecution? 

If these individuals can show that their treatment by their home government is persecution, it seems that they should be eligible for asylum.  Whether they qualify as a matter of discretion is another matter.

As for the heretical two, their applications for asylum were denied and they declined to appeal.  After removal to England, they were each convicted of crimes related to racial hatred.  Mr. Sheppard received four years and ten months imprisonment, and Mr. Whittle was sentenced to two years and four months. 

Continue reading

The Silence Between the Notes Makes the Music

by Jason Dzubow

I was never quite sure what that meant, but it somehow seems appropriate to preparing asylum cases.  There is a temptation when preparing a case to include everything the applicant brings you: school and work records, letters from witnesses, police documents, medical documents, news articles.  But sometimes in asylum, less is more, and the more asylum cases I do, the more I feel comfortable leaving things out. 

Zen and the art of asylum application.

For one thing, I’ve seen too many cases where the client included a piece of unnecessary evidence, only to have that piece of evidence create problems.  For example, I worked on an Ethiopian asylum case that was well supported with letters and other evidence.  The client also included a hospital receipt showing that she was treated for stomach illness shortly after her release from prison.  The document supported her assertion that she was sick while in prison, but we had other evidence for that, including letters from people who saw her after she was released.  DHS investigated the document and found that it was fraudulent.  Ultimately, the client was granted asylum, but not without a whole lot of difficulty and expense that could have been avoided if we left out the hospital receipt. 

The hard part, of course, is how to know what to leave out.  Generally, if I have a document that solidly supports one aspect of the applicant’s claim, I feel comfortable leaving out other documents that do the same thing.  For example, I am representing an Afghan asylum seeker who worked with a well known NATO General in Afghanistan.  We have photos of the two men together, a letter from the General, and letters from other people attesting to the relationship.  If my client’s claim is that the Taliban threatened to harm him because he was seen together with the NATO General, then it would be helpful to prove that my client and the General were actually together (I do not need to prove the substance of their meeting, only that they were together).  The photos alone are enough to prove that the two men met; the remaining evidence is extraneous and has the potential to create problems–maybe a letter is incorrectly dated or the government will suspect that the General’s letter is fraudulent and send it for a time-consuming investigation.  In this scenario, when I submit the additional evidence, I gain nothing for my client and we potentially create problems.  So why submit this additional evidence?

The REAL ID Act requires an asylum applicant to submit supporting evidence or explain the absence of that evidence, so I am not advocating not submitting pertinent evidence.  I merely suggest that an asylum applicant does not need to submit redundant evidence once he has submitted sufficient evidence to prove an aspect of his story.  Submitting the additional evidence may “bulk up” the asylum application, but it also creates the risk of an inconsistency–and inconsistencies can pop up where you’d least expect them.

I think this principle holds true for general country condition information as well.  I’ve worked on several appeals where the underlying case was litigated by someone who submitted copious evidence of country conditions.  Why?  If the New York Times has an article about a particular political rally, you don’t need an additional article from the BBC to prove that the rally occurred.  The second (or fifth) article is completely redundant and so it adds nothing to the case.  However, it does serve to burden the fact-finder.  And worse, it creates the risk of an inconsistency.

I guess the lesson for today is: Prove your case, but not too much.

Continue reading

The Center for Immigration Studies Latest Comments on Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

David North recently posted a blog entry, the Uses and Abuses of the Asylum System, on the Center for Immigration Studies website.  Normally, I disagree (sometimes vehemently) with postings on the CIS website.  But this time, I’m pretty much in agreement with Mr. North.

In his posting, Mr. North describes the refugee system and the asylum system.  Apparently, he previously prepared a comparison between refugees and asylees, examining the use of public benefits by each group (he references his study, but I did not notice a link to it).  He found that asylees generally use less pubic benefits than refugees.  He posits that asylum seekers tend to be wealthier and better educated than refugees–asylum seekers make (and pay for) their own way to the United States; refugees are selected overseas from people in camps or otherwise outside their countries. 

His assessment certainly comports with my experience.  My clients these days are asylum seekers; many of them are educated people who are reasonably well off.  In the early 1990’s, I worked in refugee resettlement.  My clients then were a mixed bag–Jewish refugees from the former Soviet Union tended to be well educated, but poor.  Amerasians and other refugees from Indochina were generally less well educated, and many were indigent.   

Mr. North also notes that asylum seekers from some countries have filed meritless cases in an effort to delay their removal from the United States.  I agree that this is a problem, though it is not really anything new.  Indeed, the asylum system was reformed in 1996 to reduce the incentive to file meritless claims.  Before 1996, asylum seekers received a work permit shortly after they filed for asylum.  Now, they must wait 150 days before they can apply for a work permit.  Of course, some people still file meritless claims in order to delay their removal.  Unfortunately, Mr. North does not suggest what could be done about this.  If we offer asylum to people with a genuine fear of persecution, it is difficult to prevent others from taking advantage of our generosity. 

I do have one minor quibble with Mr. North’s posting.  He notes that during FY 2008-2010, asylum seekers from Iraq were the group most likely to receive political asylum in Immigration Court (only 13% of Iraqi cases were denied).  He writes:

The sad irony is that the U.S. government, after spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives to make life better in Iraq, has done so little good there, in the eyes of its own Immigration Judges, that when it comes to arguing that one is persecuted in one’s own country, those from Iraq are the ones most likely to win.

I don’t know if this is exactly correct.  By the time a case reaches the decision stage in court, it is usually at least one year old, and often two or three years old.  This means that any past persecution occurred probably two to five years earlier.  During that time, conditions were much worse in Iraq.  Mr. North may be correct–maybe IJs think we have not done much good in Iraq–but it is just as likely that the cases before them originated at a time when conditions in Iraq were less secure.  My guess is, we will see the grant rate for Iraqi cases dropping over the next few years (unless of course the country falls apart again). 

In any case, it is nice to agree with the Center for Immigration Studies for a change.

Continue reading

Gay Saudi Diplomat Fears Return to His Country

by Jason Dzubow

Ali Ahmad Asseri, the first secretary of the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles, has applied for political asylum in the United States, claiming that Saudi officials have terminated his job after discovering that he was gay and was close friends with an Israeli Jewish woman.  MSNBC reports that on a Saudi website, Mr. Asseri recently criticized his country’s “backwardness” and the role of “militant imams” in Saudi society.  He also threatened to expose what he describes as politically embarrassing information about members of the Saudi royal family living in luxury in the U.S.  Mr. Asseri states that he could face persecution or death in his home country.

I suppose this represents some sort of progress.

According to MSNBC, the last time a Saudi diplomat applied for asylum in the U.S. was in 1994 when the first secretary for the Saudi mission to the United Nations was granted asylum after publicly criticizing his country’s human rights record and alleged support for terrorism.

If Mr. Asseri can demonstrate he is gay, he should have a good chance to win his asylum case: homosexuals have been defined as a particular social group and country conditions in Saudi Arabia are dangerous for gays and lesbians–according to the State Department report on Saudi Arabia, sexual activity between two persons of the same gender is punishable by death or flogging.

According to MSNBC, Mr. Asseri was interview by DHS on August 30, 2010.  He should expect a decision in the near future. 

What is curious to me about the case is why Mr. Asseri felt the need to publicize his criticisms of Saudi Arabia on the internet.  His complaint about “militant imams” might be understandable given his circumstances, but it certainly would not improve his situation were he to return home.  I know nothing about Mr. Asseri, but I’ve seen other aliens engage in activities in the U.S. that are possibly designed to bolster their asylum claims–for example, attending political rallies against their government or posting anti-government messages on the internet. 

Such activities present a challenge for the decision maker.  On the one hand, the activities may be legitimate political activities.  On the other hand, they could be designed merely to engineer a stronger case.  Either way, the activities make it more dangerous for the alien to return home.  In Mr. Asseri’s case, his internet postings do not seem to be the primary basis for his asylum claim and may simply be a manifestation of his anger over his treatment.  In any case, if he can demonstrate his sexual orientation and that he was fired from the Saudi embassy, that would likely be enough for a grant of asylum.

Continue reading

6 Comments

The BIA Rules on Frivolous Asylum Claims

by Jason Dzubow

The Board of Immigration Appeals earlier this week held that an Immigration Judge can make a determination that an asylum application is frivolous even in the absence of a final decision on the merits of that application. See Matter of X-M-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 322 (BIA 2010).  The Board also held that withdrawal of the alien’s asylum application after the required warnings and safeguards have been provided does not preclude a finding that the application is frivolous.

In Matter of X-M-C-, the alien filed an affirmative asylum application that contained false information.  After an interview at the Asylum Office in California, the case was referred to an Immigration Court.  During a court hearing, the alien admitted that her asylum claim and her testimony before the Asylum Officer were false.  She withdrew her application for asylum and applied for adjustment of status.  She also admitted to submitting fraudulent documents.  The IJ denied the adjustment of status holding that the later recantation of her story did “not waive the fact that a frivolous application has been filed.”  The BIA found:

[An] Immigration Judge’s authority to determine that an alien has knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum is not limited to circumstances in which the Immigration Judge makes a final determination on the merits of the application. The relevant provisions of the Act and the regulations clearly indicate that an inquiry into whether an application is frivolous can be triggered once the application is “made” or “filed.” 

“Consequently,” the Board held, “after a determination has been made that an asylum application is frivolous, a separate evaluation of the merits of the application is not necessary.”

The Board also determined that withdrawal of the asylum application does not prevent a determination that the application was frivolous:

The plain language of section 208(d)(6) clearly provides that an asylum application can be deemed frivolous once it is “made” and the required warnings have been given. Allowing the preemptive withdrawal of an application to prevent a finding of frivolousness would undermine both the plain language of, and the policy behind, section 208(d)(6)—as well as the potency of the required warnings. An alien, such as the respondent, who not only filed a frivolous application but also testified falsely in support of that application to an asylum officer could escape the consequences deliberately chosen by Congress to prevent such abuse of the system.

While applicants should be encouraged to recant false statements and withdraw false applications, the Immigration Judge and this Board are not prevented from finding that an application is frivolous simply because the applicant withdrew the application or recanted false statements after the appropriate warnings and safeguards were given, but prior to a decision on the merits.

The paragraph quoted immediately above lays bare the dilemma of cases involving fraudulent asylum applications.  On the one hand, we want to encourage aliens to recant false statements.  On the other hand, Congress has plainly indicated that aliens who make false statements should be punished.  The alien who makes up a claim where there is none has earned such treatment.  But aliens who have legitimate claims often “enhance” their story because they feel (or are told) that they should do so.  Such aliens are–to me at least–much more sympathetic.  In general, IJs seem to distinguish between these two categories of fraudsters, treating the latter better than the former. 

Matter of X-M-C- does not require frivolous findings and does not prevent IJs from distinguishing the different types of fraud.  It does, however, make clear that an alien cannot protect herself from a frivolous finding by withdrawing her asylum application.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Second Circuit Denies Chinese Asylum Cases En Masse

by Jason Dzubow

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently issued a summary order denying petitions for review in 24 separate cases involving Chinese asylum seekers.  The Court held:

Each of these petitioners, all Chinese citizens, challenges a decision of the BIA denying their applications for relief based on the birth of one or more children in the United States. For largely the same reasons this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008), we find no error in the BIA’s decision denying each application.

The Court’s Internal Operating Procedures allow for such orders, and this is not the first time the Court has denied cases like this en masse.  But are these mass denials fair to the petitioners and proper under the law?

First, some background.  In response to the “one family, one child” population control measures in China, Congress passed a law modifying the definition of “refugee” to include anyone subject to forced sterilization or forced abortion, as well as people who resist coercive population control measures.  This (predictably) led to hundreds of claims by Chinese nationals who had not been subject to past persecution or credible threats of future persecution.  Rather, these asylum seekers argued that because they had more than one child–which is not allowed under Chinese law–they would be subject to forced sterilization if returned to China, and should thus be granted asylum. 

Sometimes one is enough.

Because laws are enforced differently throughout China, the BIA found that cases involving Chinese nationals with more than one child must be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine whether each alien has a well founded fear of persecution.  Thus, the BIA has restricted a provision that was arguably meant to be expansive.  In Jian Hui Shao, the Second Circuit accepted the case-by-case analysis endorsed by the BIA, and held that it would not disturb the BIA’s ruling unless it concluded that “no reasonable fact-finder could have failed to find in favor of petitioner.”

Turning to the summary order disposing of the 24 Chinese asylum cases, all of those cases involve Chinese nationals who fear persecution because they have more than one child.  Apparently, some of the asylum seekers were originally granted asylum, but those decisions were reversed by the BIA.  Other asylum seekers were denied by the Immigration Judge and the BIA.  The asylum seekers are represented by different attorneys and have all filed their own briefs.  Aside from the fact that they share similar legal issues, the cases are unrelated.  But the Court denied them en masse.

Whether intentional or not, the cursory review and mass denials send a message that the Second Circuit will not entertain Chinese forced-sterilization cases.  This seems inconsistent with our system of justice and unfair to the litigants, who deserve to know (1) that the Court actually considered their individual claim, and (2) the reason for the Court’s decision.  It is also unfair to the attorneys (the private attorneys and the Department of Justice attorneys) who have spent many hours briefing their cases.  I doubt a federal appeals court would issue mass denials in cases involving civil or criminal appeals.  Immigration cases should be treated with the same respect.  It is understandable that the Court would be frustrated with the large number of cases coming from the Board of Immigration Appeals.  However, all litigants deserve to have their cases heard and considered.  Perhaps the Second Circuit has carefully reviewed each litigant’s claim, but the summary orders and mass denials send a message that the Court simply does not care about these cases.

Continue reading

2 Comments

BS from CIS

by Jason Dzubow

The Center for Immigration Studies never seems to let the facts get in the way of attacking immigrants and those who advocate for them.  Most recently, Jessica Vaughan, CIS Director of Policy Studies, criticized Immigration Daily for holding a training on gang-based asylum claims.  Instead of discussing the actual subject of the training, which is not particularly controversial, Ms. Vaughan simply made up her own version of the event in order to attack Immigration Daily.  Of the training, she writes:

Learn how to establish that your gangster clients are “members of a particular social group,” that they deserve humanitarian protection due to their “political opinions” or “religion” (such as La Familia, the murderous Mexican cult-like cartel), and what the UN guidelines are on these oppressed individuals. This e-learning session was preceded by one on how to help your client get a waiver if they are denied a green card or refugee status because of their links to terrorist groups. No, this wasn’t in The Onion, it was in Immigration Daily, the leading e-newsletter of the immigration bar.

Ms. Vaughan did not find this description on the Immigration Daily website.  Rather, she made it up.  Gang-based asylum does not involve helping gang members enter the U.S.  Rather, it is about helping people who have been threatened by gangs.  But, Ms. Vaughan’s goal apparently is not to engage in intelligent debate or education; it is simply to denigrate and discredit those who advocate for people fleeing persecution. 

The Southern Poverty Law Center says of CIS: “it has always been part of a broad-based and well-planned effort to attack immigration in all forms.”  By making up phony arguments to influence the uninformed, Ms. Vaughan seems to be making their point for them.  If CIS wants to be taken seriously, maybe it should demonstrate a little integrity.  It can start by telling the truth.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Can DNA Stop Asylum Fraud?

by Jason Dzubow

The United Kingdom is experimenting with genetic testing as a method for reducing asylum fraud.  According to the UK Border Agency, falsifying nationality to gain political asylum has been a particular problem among East Africans (I recently discussed this problem here).  In response, the UKBA attempted to implement a program to genetically test East African asylum seekers to determine their country of origin.  The 2009 program was much criticized by scientists and immigrant advocates, and the British government ultimately shelved the plan.  However, the UK is continuing a smaller scale “proof of concept” project that is scheduled to finish up this month.  According to the UKBA: 

Participation in the project will be entirely voluntary, and will test whether there is the potential for these investigations to be supported by wider use of DNA testing and isotope analysis. Whilst this trial is being undertaken, no decisions on individual cases will be made using these techniques, and they will not be used for evidential purposes.

At the end of the project, the UKBA will evaluate the efficacy and ethics of the project and determine whether the technique could be used to augment its decision-making process in asylum cases. 

A UKBA scientist tests for Somali nationality.

The main objection to the project seems to be that it conflates nationality with ancestry.  A Somali citizen, for example, may be of Ethiopian ancestry.  The science website Singularity Hub reports:

[G]enes don’t relate to political borders. And there are strong doubts as to whether testing this particular group can even provide the slightest statistical reliability, mainly because of past and present population movements throughout the region.

Current TV reports on a second part of the test:

[An] applicant will be asked to give hair and fingernail samples; by looking at which forms of certain elements the samples contain, the government scientists hope to find evidence of the person’s diet and environment [to determine the country of origin]. But isotope specialist Tamsin O’Connell says the results won’t be specific enough to be meaningful. “It is very difficult to identify individuals to very specific locations using isotopes alone,” she said.

In other words, whether or not genetics and isotope analysis can be used to determine nationality is a dubious presumption.  Further, using genetic testing in this way raises ethical issues.  Current TV reports that geneticists and isotope specialists have referred to the project as “horrifying,” “naïve,” and “flawed.”

Writing for the Singularity Hub, Christopher de la Torre imagines a time when genetic testing might be able to identify a person’s country of origin: 

Using DNA to track populations and ancestry isn’t new, but regulating according to DNA opens a Pandora’s box of potential. As the rate of technological progress grows exponentially, it’s more important than ever to balance our ability with morality. 

Continue reading

Pennsylvania Man Sentenced for Asylum Fraud

by Jason Dzubow

From a June 10, 2010 Department of Justice press release:

David Lynn, 35, of Holland, PA, was sentenced today to 40 months in prison for leading an asylum fraud scheme that netted him and five co-defendants millions of dollars in illegal profits, announced United States Attorney Zane David Memeger. Lynn pleaded guilty, in October 2008, to one count of conspiracy, one count of visa/asylum fraud, one count of money laundering, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Lynn, who was charged with five co-defendants, ran a business that filed at least 380 bogus asylum applications for clients, between January 2003 and March 2007, charging an average of $8,000 for an application.

Investigators say Lynn posed as a lawyer.  According to an ABC News report, “only a handful of Lynn’s 380 clients from around the country made it through the system by claiming they would face oppression if they returned home.”  The majority of the aliens are in removal proceedings.  Some have already left the country knowing they were going to be deported.  According to another report, the perpetrators were Russian immigrants and most clients were from Russia, Ukraine, and Poland.

Unfortunately, it is a common pattern for unscrupulous immigrants to exploit their countrymen, who are naive about the American system and are ready to trust their own kind.  What’s most amazing to me is that a guy who lost the large majority of his cases and charged $8,000 per person–far more than most legitimate lawyers–seemed to maintain a booming business.  It’s a sad testament to the gullibility and desperation of the clients, some of whom may have lost out on bona fide claims.  Other clients were likely complicit in the fraud, and it’s harder to muster sympathy for them. 

I believe the best way to stop fraud is to go after people like Mr. Lynn, who blatantly take advantage of a system that is designed to help the most vulnerable.  By stopping Mr. Lynn, the DOJ has helped to preserve the integrity of the asylum process.  Congratulations to those involved in the investigation, and keep up the good work.

Continue reading

Two Unpublished BIA Victories for Mentally Ill Respondents

by Jason Dzubow

Here are two recent decisions from the BIA involving mentally ill defendants who faced persecution in their homelands:

(1) Professor Muneer Ahmad of the Yale Law School Worker & Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic reports that the BIA has reversed a decision by the IJ denying Convention Against Torture relief to a mentally ill Haitian man.  The Haitian man argued that he would be jailed in Haiti and that he would not receive his medication.  Without medication, the man would not be able to comply or adapt to the conditions in prison.  As a result of this non-compliance, he would be beaten and tortured in prison.  The BIA found that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured.  The Board’s decision reversed the IJ and remanded the case for a grant of CAT relief.  The student attorneys on the case were Alice Hwang, Dale Kotchka-Alanes, Rebecca Scholtz, and Matt Vogel.

(2) Attorney Bob Jobe represented the respondent in another unpublished BIA decision.  In that case, the Board originally denied the claim, but the Ninth Circuit remanded to assess whether “Peruvians with serious chronic mental disabilities” constitutes a particular social group.  On remand, the BIA held: “Mental disabilities are clearly immutable characteristics in that those suffering from them cannot change their disability. Furthermore, people with serious and chronic mental disabilities are socially visible and the evidence of record establishes that [in Peru] they are often discriminated against and treated in an inhumane manner.” 

Mazel Tov to all on these successful outcomes.

Continue reading

2 Comments

A Short “Wish List” for the Refugee Protection Act

by Jason Dzubow

The RPA provides important new protections to asylum seekers, particularly the most vulnerable asylum seekers such as people who are pro se or detained.  However, I can think of a couple important issues that are not addressed.  Below are some problems that my clients have faced over and over again, and some suggested solutions.

The Asylum Clock 

The broken asylum clock isn't even correct twice a day

Within the circle of attorneys who represent asylum seekers, the “asylum clock” may be the most discussed problem in need of resolution (Penn State Dickinson School of Law recently issued a comprehensive report about the asylum clock). When a client files an affirmative application for asylum, the clock starts to run.  When the clock reaches 150 days, the applicant may file for an Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”).  The EAD is very important because it allows an asylum seeker to work legally in the United States, and serves as a form of identification.  The problem is, if the alien does anything to delay his case, the clock stops, and generally will not re-start.  So, for example, if an alien is represented by counsel, and the attorney cannot accept a particular court date due to a conflict, the clock stops and the alien never receives an EAD.  Also, when an unrepresented asylum seeker asks for more time to find an attorney, the clock stops.  It is usually impossible to restart the clock. 

Aliens who enter the United States without inspection or aliens who file for asylum after one year in the U.S. do not have a clock, and it is usually not possible for them to obtain an EAD.

Thus, many asylum seekers endure one to two year waits (which are common in Immigration Court) without the ability to work legally, and without any form of identification.

One possible solution to this problem is to give the Immigration Judges more authority to grant an EAD.  If the alien is deliberately causing delay in his case, the IJ should not grant an EAD.  But where the delay is not caused by the alien or is reasonable, the alien should receive an EAD.

Employment Authorization Document

A second area in need of reform is the EAD itself.  Aliens granted asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the UN Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) are entitled to an EAD.  The EAD is valid for one year and must then be renewed.  The validity period of the EAD should be changed to at least two years.

Aliens with asylum generally apply for their lawful permanent residency (i.e., their green card) after one year.  However, aliens who have withholding of removal or CAT relief are not eligible to become LPRs.  Such aliens must renew their EADs every year.  This can be problematic for a number of reasons.  First, the cost to renew is $340.00 every year.  For aliens with limited means, this sum may be prohibitive.  Second, assuming the alien remembers to file on time, the new EAD may or may not arrive prior to the expiration of the old EAD.  If the new EAD does not arrive in time, the alien’s job might be jeopardized, as employers will often terminate employees without a valid EAD.  Third, many states link the driver’s license to the EAD, so when the EAD expires, the driver’s license expires.  Even if the EAD arrives on time, there may be a delay in renewing the driver’s license.  The alien could be left without a valid driver’s license (or any valid ID).

These problems would be greatly reduced if the EAD were valid for two (or more) years, instead of one year. 

Finally, Some Media Attention

The RPA has been largly ignored by the media.  Last week, Josh Shahyar had an article in the Huffington Post, “The Immigration Bill No One Is Talking About.”  Hopefully the article adds some momentum to the push for this worthy piece of legislation.

Continue reading

3 Comments

President Obama’s Aunt Wins Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

An Immigration Judge in Boston granted asylum to President Obama’s aunt Zeituni Onyango, a Kenyan national who has been in the U.S. since 2000.  Ms. Onyango first applied for asylum in 2002.  She was initially denied, but then either appealed or reopened her case (I have found nothing definitive about the course of the litigation).  Earlier today, the IJ granted her application for asylum. 

Obama's aunt holds a photo of herself and a little-known state senator

At least as far as I can tell, the basis for Ms. Onyango’s claim has not been made public.  My guess is that after Obama was elected president (or at least after he became nationally and internationally known), Ms. Onyango filed a motion to reopen her case and asserted that she would face persecution from people who wished to harm her family (the Obama family).  Given the various threats to our country, this seems a reasonable claim.  Although perhaps the possibility of her facing harm in Kenya is remote (Obama’s grandmother is living there peacefully), it’s easy to understand why an IJ would be reluctant to send her back.  She would make a tempting target for extremists, and it would be a blow to the U.S. if she were harmed.  Under these circumstances–and given the fairly low threshold for asylum–it’s not a surprise that the IJ granted Ms. Onyango’s claim.

Professional Obama-hater Michelle Malkin and others have raised the question of whether Ms. Onyango received special treatment because of her relationship with the President.  Of course, I have no idea (and neither do they), but special treatment hardly seems necessary in a case like Ms. Onyango’s.  I once represented an Afghani woman who received a fellowship to study in the United States.  A university brought her here and supported her, and the local press covered her progress for four years.  Towards the end of her fellowship, extremists in her country threatened her, and we applied for asylum.  I argued that she was a prime target for anti-American extremists because of her relationship with our country–had she been harmed in Afghanistan, it would have been seen as a major victory for our enemies.  The Asylum Office granted her application.  Ms. Onyango’s situation was similar to my client’s, in that our enemies would view an attack against her as an attack against the United States.  Not surprisingly, the IJ was not willing to take that risk.

Continue reading

The BIA on Frivolous Asylum Applications

by Jason Dzubow

Biao Yang probably isn’t the first man to tell an exaggerated story about his courage in defense of a woman’s honor. Similarly self-aggrandizing stories have no doubt been told in countless bars and around hundreds of water coolers.

Narrative license of this sort usually carries little risk. A drinking buddy or co-worker might express disbelief by making reference to bovine excrement.

But the personal consequences of Yang’s embellishments are far more serious, as they will likely result in his deportation and the imposition of a lifetime bar to future immigration benefits. The consequences of Yang’s narrative excesses also had a broader effect, as they were the focus of a recent BIA decision that added to the administrative corpus of immigration law by clarifying the standards under which asylum claims are determined to have been made frivolously.

TOUGH GUY

Yang, a Chinese national, arrived in Chicago in 2002. After touching down, he told immigration officials at O’Hare that he had fled his country because “family planning authorities” – bureaucrats tasked with enforcing the country’s “One Child” policies – had forced his girlfriend to abort her pregnancy and that they wanted to arrest him.

Poster extolling the virtues of the one child policy

The embellishments would come in an asylum application filed 18 months later. In that application, Yang asserted that he got into a scuffle with and injured one of the abortionist bureaucrats who had come to his house to escort his girlfriend to the hospital. He further claimed to have been beaten and detained for his fearless acts. And then he claimed that he made a prison break and left the country.

IJ DECISION AND SECOND CIRCUIT REMAND

None of these details had been mentioned during the airport interview, however. This and other suspicious aspects of Yang’s story – including chronological discrepancies , “rank inconsistencies” within his testimony, and the sheer “implausibility” of his prison-break story – led an immigration judge to render an “adverse credibility determination.”

The result was denial of Yang’s asylum claim. But the IJ further held that these inconsistencies indicated that Yang’s asylum claim had been filed frivolously – which resulted in the imposition of a lifetime bar to future immigration benefits.

The IJ’s decision was affirmed by the BIA.  However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit remanded because the case exposed vagueness in the existing BIA standard for making a “frivolousness” determination. Those standards included:

[A] specific finding by the Immigration Judge or the Board that the alien knowingly filed a frivolous application … [and] … sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that a material element of the asylum application was deliberately fabricated

The Second Circuit examined:

to what extent the IJ is required to set out his or her factual findings to support a frivolousness determination separately from the adverse credibility determination and to what extent he or she is permitted to incorporate by reference the findings made to support an adverse credibility determination.

BIA CLARIFICATIONS

On remand, Matter of B-Y-, 25 I&N Dec. 236 (BIA 2010), the BIA made the following clarifications:

Factual findings made in reaching an adverse credibility determination can be incorporated into the findings made in reaching a frivolousness determination … but will not be sufficient … the frivolousness determination requires additional, explicit findings of “materiality” and “deliberate fabrication.” 

The BIA stated:

In this case, as is often the situation, fact-finding regarding credibility overlaps with fact-finding as to whether an asylum application was frivolously filed. Both determinations involve the identification of inconsistencies and discrepancies in the asylum claim and consideration of any explanations offered for them. There may be circumstances where the pertinent facts do not overlap, and separate factual findings by an Immigration Judge will be necessary.

However, neither fairness nor clarity requires an Immigration Judge to separate and repeat those aspects of the credibility determination that overlap with the frivolousness determination.

… The frivolousness determination, however, requires explicit findings as to “materiality” and “deliberate fabrication” that are not required for an adverse credibility determination. As we indicated in Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. at 156, “[T]he Immigration Judge must separately address the question of frivolousness, including a discussion of the evidence supporting a finding that the respondent deliberately fabricated a material element of the asylum claim.”

Continue reading

The Refugee Protection Act and the “Central Reason” for Persecution

by Jason Dzubow

This is part four in a series of posts about the Refugee Protection Act (“RPA”), a bill introduced by Senators Leahy and Levin in the United States Senate.  The RPA would modify the requirements for asylum by changing the requirement that a “central reason” for the persecution is a protected ground.

In order to qualify for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on a protected ground (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, particular social group).  The REAL ID Act (effective May 11, 2005) modified this definition, and the law now requires that “at least one central reason” for the persecution must be a protected ground.  The BIA found that this new requirement did not “radically alter[]” existing law. See In re: J-B-N- & S-M-, 24 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 2007). 

While the law may not have been radically altered, the REAL ID Act makes it more difficult for asylum seekers to obtain relief.  I worked on a case in the Fourth Circuit (ably litigated at the agency level by the University of Maryland Law School Clinic) where an El Salvadoran man had been repeatedly harassed and beaten by members of the MS-13 gang.  The gang attacked him for several reasons: (1) they did not want him to date a certain girl; (2) they wanted to steal his money; and (3) they did not want him to attend the Seventh Day Adventist Church.  The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) specifically found that the harm faced by the asylum seeker rose to the level of persecution, and she told him: “I think you are in a terrible situation and I could not have more sympathy for you.”  However, both the IJ and the BIA found that the “central reasons” for the persecution were that the gang did not want my client to date the girl and the gang wanted to rob him–these are not protected grounds.  The BIA found that “even assuming… religion was one motive, we do not find his religion to be ‘at least one central reason’ for the persecution.”  The Fourth Circuit agreed and denied our Petition for Review. See Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2009).   

What motivates this guy?

The difficulty in Quinteros-Mendoza was that the IJ had to determine the motivation of the gang members.  It is difficult enough to establish the motivation of a persecutor, let alone to rank that motivation as “one central reason” for the persecution.  The RPA would relax this requirement.  The law would be changed so that the applicant must prove only that a protected ground is “a factor in the applicant’s persecution or fear of persecution.” 

Where an asylum applicant faces persecution, he should not be required to demonstrate the motivation for his persecutor’s actions with such specificity.  The RPA would correct this problem.

Continue reading

The Refugee Protection Act and Particular Social Groups

by Jason Dzubow

This is part three in a series about the Refugee Protection Act.  The RPA provides guidance about what constitutes a “particular social group.”

A refugee is defined as a person with a well founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. See INA § 101(a)(42)(A).  There has been much litigation concerning what constitutes a “particular social group.”  

The Refugee Protection Act provides helpful guidance on what constitutes a “particular social group.”  The RPA states:

For purposes of determinations under the Act, any group whose members share a characteristic that is either immutable or fundamental to identity, conscience, or the exercise of the person’s human rights such that the person should not be required to change it, shall be deemed a particular social group, without any additional requirement.

While this provision makes the definition of “particular social group” more specific, it still leaves open at least one important question: Will the definition of “particular social group” apply to former members of criminal organizations?  In the Seventh Circuit case, Ramos v. Holder, 589 F.3d 426 (7th Cir. 2009), the court held that former gang members might constitute a particular social group.  If the Refugee Protection Act defines a “particular social group” as “any group whose members share a characteristic that is… immutable,” then former gang members would qualify as a particular social group.  Current–as opposed to former–gang members would not qualify as a particular social group because gang membership is not immutable.  In other words, it is possible to quit the gang.  Former gang membership is immutable, because it is not possible for an alien to change the fact that he once belonged to a criminal gang.  Under the RPA, it seems that a former member of any organization would be part of a particular social group

Ex-members of the knitting circle form a particular social group

Even if former gang members constitute a particular social group, they would likely be ineligible for asylum based on criminal and security-related grounds.

I have worked on several cases where former gang members feared persecution by gangs.  In one case, several members of my client’s family had been killed.  My client was granting withholding of removal based on his particular social group (his family; not his former gang membership).  In another case, my client was denied relief where the IJ found that he did not belong to a particular social group.  In both cases, the clients faced harm from the gang because they quit the gang.  The danger of gang violence against former gang members is very real.  In a well known case, Edgar Chocoy, a 16-year-old former member of the MS-13 gang, was ordered removed from the United States.  Shortly after he returned to Guatemala, gang members murdered him. 

The Refugee Protection Act should provide protection for former gang members who face harm in their countries.  While we must be cognizant of security concerns (and of offering benefits to criminals), we must also recognize the severe threat faced by legitimate former gang members. 

Continue reading

1 Comment