When Service Centers Attack

by Jason Dzubow

Asylum applications are initially submitted to one of the USCIS Service Centers.  After an initial review, the Service Center forwards the application to the appropriate Asylum Office for an interview.  Unfortunately, the Service Centers reject a fair number of applications and mail them back to the applicants (or their lawyers).  Based on my own experience, it seems that many of these rejections are frivolous or at least unwarranted, and this raises concerns about access to justice for asylum seekers.

Where I live (in the civilized part of the country), we submit our asylum applications to the Texas Service Center.  Maybe I’ve just been on a losing streak, but in recent months, I have had three applications rejected and returned to me by the TSC.  Each one was rejected for an illegitimate reason (at least as far as I am concerned).  The first application was rejected because we failed to list the applicant’s siblings on the form.  But the applicant has no siblings, so there was nothing for us to list.  After this rejection, I have taken to writing “n/a” in any space on the form that would otherwise be left blank.  The second rejection occurred because USCIS wanted additional information that the Alien number we listed belonged to the applicant.  However, the applicant’s Alien number had been assigned to him by USCIS.  Why they simply couldn’t look up the number that they previously assigned to the applicant is beyond me.  The most recent rejection was because the applicant purportedly failed to include an additional copy of the I-589 for her dependent child, whose application was attached to her’s.  Also, supposedly, we did not include evidence (like a birth certificate) establishing the relationship between the parent and the child.  The only problem here is that we did include an extra copy of the I-589 form and a copy of a document showing that the applicant was the parent (there are no birth certificates in the applicant’s country).  I even clearly listed these documents on the cover page.  For this one, I have no idea why the application was rejected.  Before mailing it back, I highlighted some documents in bright pink and attached some sticky notes.  I’ll hope for the best.

If only the Service Centers were this helpful.

I imagine that if the Service Centers regularly reject applications prepared by someone familiar with the process, they must reject a good portion of the applications they receive.  For pro se asylum seekers, this creates a barrier that might prevent them from presenting their cases.  So what’s to be done?

The basic problem, I think, is that the criteria for rejecting asylum applications is too stringent.  Forget to check the box indicating whether you received a list of attorneys who can represent you at low or no cost?  Rejected.  Fail to indicate whether you are fluent in English?  Rejected.  Forget an extra copy of the I-589 for the dependent?  Rejected.

I recognize that the Service Centers are bureaucracies with limited resources.  However, in some cases, it would seem easier to either contact the applicant and ask for an explanation of the problem or let the Asylum Officer deal with the problem at the interview.  In cases of minor errors, these solutions would be easier and less expensive than reviewing the application, deciding to reject it, addressing the return envelope, paying for the return envelope, and repeating the process once the application is re-submitted.  It would also be less frustrating for attorneys (i.e., me) and it would better ensure access to justice for pro se applicants.

On September 13, 2012, two Service Centers will hold their Fall Asylum and Refugee Conference to discuss issues related to asylum:

The TSC is partnering with the Nebraska Service Center (NSC) to provide an opportunity to meet staff and share information on asylum- and refugee-related topics through presentation and open dialogue. The conference will include a panel discussion with representatives from the Refugee, Asylum and International Operations (RAIO) and Service Center Operations (SCOPS) directorates, the director of the National Visa Center (tentative), as well as TSC and NSC employees. Immigration Services Officers will also be available in the afternoon to answer your case-specific questions.

I certainly hope that one topic of conversation will be how to reduce the rejection rate for asylum applications.  

Continue reading

7 Comments

To Brief or Not to Brief

by Jason Dzubow

It seems that every lawyer who represents asylum seekers has their own style of preparing cases.  Not surprisingly, each person thinks his way is the best (of course, they are all wrong, since my way is best).

One big divide I’ve noticed is between lawyers who submit legal briefs with their cases and those who don’t.  Whether due to increased efficiency or increased laziness, I am one of the lawyers who generally does not submit a brief with my cases.

When I first started doing asylum cases, I submitted briefs.  I felt it was necessary to set forth the law and the facts of my case, and to show why my client qualified for asylum.  As time went on, I ended that practice.  Now, I only include briefs if there is a sui generis (to use a fancy law school term) issue that deserves elucidation or if there are criminal or persecutor issues in the case.

The way I see it, there are advantages and disadvantages to including briefs with run-of-the-mill cases.

One advantage is that a brief helps the lawyer organize her thoughts.  It also forces the lawyer to specifically set forth the basis for the claim and might help exposes weaknesses that can be addressed prior to submitting the case.  Briefs are also helpful for cases involving “particular social groups,” where the brief can clearly define the social group.  Further, since lawyers should always be thinking one or two steps ahead, a brief creates a road map for appeal.  When Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers see that an applicant is well-prepared to continue litigating his case, they may be more likely to grant relief.  In addition, for new lawyers or lawyers who don’t normally represent asylum seekers, a brief can be particularly helpful for the lawyer to understand the law and how the facts of the case meet the legal requirements.

There are also disadvantages to writing briefs.  The main disadvantage is that writing a brief is time consuming.  Lawyers have limited time to prepare cases and we need to be efficient.  Time spent preparing a brief might better be used for gathering evidence, doing country condition research or preparing witnesses for trial.  My sense is that IJs and Trial Attorneys often do not read legal briefs, except if there is a legal issue that concerns them.  They already know the law, and they will gain a better understanding of the facts by reading the applicant’s story and reviewing the evidence.  Again, it is a question of efficiency–Asylum Officers and IJs have limited time to review cases, and they need to use their time wisely.

Also, for normal cases, where the law is not in dispute, a brief can be a distraction.  Conscientious fact-finders will often feel obliged to read everything submitted with an asylum application.  A brief that spends three pages “educating” the fact-finder about the law of asylum might be seen as condescending and does not provide information that will help the client.

Instead of a brief, I like to write a paragraph (or maybe two) explaining the basis of the claim.  If there is a particular social group, I define what that is.  I also include a detailed summary of the client’s affidavit and each piece of evidence.  To me, this is more useful to the IJ than a brief because she can read the summary and gain a good understanding of the case.

All that said, there of course is no “right way” to present an asylum case.  Each lawyer must decide what is best for herself and her client.

Continue reading

4 Comments

New Government Training Manuel for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Asylum Claims

by Jason Dzubow

USCIS and Immigration Equality have joined forces to create a new training module for asylum adjudicators called “Guidance for Adjudicating Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) Refugee and Asylum Claims.”  According to Immigration Equality, the new module “instructs asylum officers on substantive aspects of the law and highlights the unique difficulties that LGBTI claimants may experience in articulating their claims for asylum.”  A few highlights from the module:

  • My favorite LGBTI asylum seeker.
    Helpful definitions, and appropriately sensitive questions, for officers to use, including specific instructions about questions to avoid, such as those related to specific sexual practices;
  • LGBTI-specific examples of harm that may constitute persecution, including: laws criminalizing same-sex sexual activity in an applicant’s home country; forced medical or psychiatric treatment intended to “cure” an applicant’s sexual orientation; forced marriage to an opposite-gender spouse; severe economic harm; and beatings or other physical abuse;
  • Instructions for analyzing complex issues, for example, that a former opposite-gender marriage does not mean an applicant is not lesbian or gay; that LGBTI applicants are not required to meet pre-conceived stereotypes or “look gay;” and that cultural norms within the LGBTI community in an applicant’s home country may differ from those in the U.S.; and
  • A non-exhaustive list of possible one-year filing deadline exceptions (which make it difficult to pursue asylum after one year of presence in the United States), including: recently “coming out” as LGBTI; recent steps to transition from birth gender to corrected gender; a recent HIV diagnosis; post-traumatic stress disorder; or severe family opposition to an applicant’s identity.

I am particularly happy to see some (though, in my opinion, not enough) guidance about the one-year filing deadline (see page 47 of the module).  Most likely, the reason for the sparse guidance is that there is not much BIA case law on this issue (note to BIA–publish more cases!).  In my experience–and I am not alone–the one year deadline is a particular problem in LGBTI cases.

Overall, the module seems like a valuable resource for adjudicators and advocates.  Congratulations to Immigration Equality and USCIS on a job well done.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Credibility Determinations Are Not Credible, Part Three

by Jason Dzubow

In this series, I have been writing about methods for determining whether an alien is telling the truth.  So far, I have examined inconsistencies, demeanor, and lack of detail, and I have posited that none of these methods is very reliable.  Today, I will examine one method that I have long felt was the least reliable, but as I’ve worked on more cases, I have begun to believe that it actually may work better than other techniques used to determine credibility.  I am speaking about plausibility.

First, what do we mean by plausibility?  When a fact finder determines that an event is not believable, it is implausible.  For example, I worked on a case where the Immigration Judge found my client’s testimony implausible.  The client was an Ethiopian political activist who passed through government security at the airport even though a warrant had been issued for her arrest.  The IJ did not believe that a person wanted by the government could pass through airport security.

Unless your name is Big Daddy, you probably can't smell the mendacity.

The reason I previously felt that plausibility was a poor basis for determining credibility is because it is difficult to know what is plausible.  In the above example, it turns out that many high-level political activists who had been jailed by the government were able to leave the country through the airport.  In my case, we presented this evidence and my client received asylum.

As I’ve thought about it more, I’ve come to believe that my case was decided in the proper way.  The IJ was concerned about a legitimate plausibility issue.  We presented evidence to satisfy that concern.  The case was granted. 

The astronomer Carl Sagan famously said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”  Mr. Sagan’s axiom can be applied in the asylum context.  Where an alien makes a claim that the IJ finds implausible, the alien should be given an opportunity to demonstrate that the claim is, in fact, plausible.  The more implausible the claim, the better evidence the alien will need to demonstrate plausibility.  This seems like a reasonable method for assessing credibility.

If there is a conclusion to this short series on credibility, I suppose it is that no method of determining credibility is all that reliable.  This problem exists in all areas of the law, but it is particularly acute in the asylum context where so much rests on an alien’s unsupported testimony.  The various methods of determining credibility can certainly help suss out the most egregious untruths, but beyond that, I have real doubts about their effectiveness.  In the end, the fact finder must reach a conclusion using the imperfect tools that are available.  Given all that rides on these decisions, it’s not a task I envy them.

Continue reading

Credibility Determinations Are Not Credible, Part Two

by Jason Dzubow

I previously wrote about how credibility determinations based on inconsistencies are not reliable.  Today, I want to discuss a couple more methods that I think don’t work, and next time, I will write about one method that seemingly doesn’t work, but might actually be a better test for credibility than the other methods.  First, two methods that don’t work well:

Demean girl.

– Demeanor.  Fact finders often judge credibility based on the alien’s demeanor during testimony.  Demeanor includes things like “body language,” “looking at the judge,” “responsiveness” to questions, and whether the alien’s answers are “vague.”  Such evaluations are quite subjective and–because the IJ actually sees the respondent in person while the BIA does not–are subject to great deference by reviewing courts.  The problem, of course, is that cultural differences and different personalities can be confused with deceptive demeanor.  This is particularly true in asylum cases, where the applicant often has faced persecution by the authorities, and is nervous to present herself before a tribunal.  These issues, and the inability for reviewing courts to overseas demeanor determinations, make demeanor a poor method for judging credibility.

– Lack of Detail.  This is one that you see on referrals from the Asylum Office, but it’s not so common in Immigration Court.  My initial reaction when I see this is to blame the Asylum Officer.  If the Officer wanted more detail, she should have asked more questions.  But I know this is not exactly what is meant by “lack of detail.” 

Demeanor girl.

An example will illustrate the point.  An asylum seeker (represented by my friend) was asked to describe the conditions of her detention.  She responded: “I was locked up and I was interrogated.”  The Officer repeated the question and received a similar answer.  As my friend points out, even someone who has never been to prison knows that detained people are locked up and interrogated.  Thus, this testimony lacks detail because anyone–whether they had been detained or not–could have provided it.  In this situation, the Asylum Officer or her attorney should have asked additional, more specific questions, such as “What did you do every day in detention?” “How was the food?” “Describe your prison cell,” etc.  If the applicant could not provide additional information, a finding of “lack of detail” would be appropriate.

The reason I think “lack of detail” is a poor basis for credibility determinations is because Asylum Officers and immigration lawyers don’t always ask enough questions to distinguish between an alien who is unable to provide additional detail versus an alien who does not provide additional details because he does not understand the type of information the Asylum Officer is looking for.

Obviously for both “demeanor” and “lack of detail,” where there are egregious problems with the alien’s testimony, he can properly be found incredible.  However, in many run-of-the-mill situations, these methods are not a reliable measure of whether the alien is telling the truth.  In a future post, I will discuss some methods of judging credibility that might be more effective. 

Continue reading

The Little Things Mean a Lot

by Jason Dzubow

Over the years, I’ve attended many asylum interviews.  I notice that different Asylum Officers conduct the interviews in different ways.  While much of this is personal style, some of the differences strike me as something more.  I wonder whether these different interview techniques have any effect on the decision.  Below are some of the differences I’ve noticed, and some thoughts about them:

– Some officers type their notes; others write the notes by hand.  Also, some officers seemingly write down every word the applicant says, while others do not.  These differences are pretty substantive, and they speak to the need to record asylum interviews.   Asylum Officer notes are not only used to make decisions; they are sometimes used for impeachment purposes in Immigration Court.  Notes that are vague or illegible may not be admissible in court.  Also, if different officers are preparing their notes in different ways, it impacts the supervisor’s ability to review the Asylum Officer’s decision.  If interviews were recorded, the officers could take whatever notes they needed to make their decision, and we would still have an accurate record of the interview available to the supervisors and the Immigration Court. 

Some interview styles work better than others.

– Some officers make photocopies of original documents, even when we have submitted copies of those documents already.  Other officers rely on the copies we have submitted.  I don’t think this makes much difference in the case, but it is a bit odd.  Why does one officer trust the copies that we’ve submitted while another officer wants to make her own copies? 

– Some officers copy the lawyer’s ID, others do not.  Again, I don’t see how this makes any substantive difference, but I have no idea why one officer wants a copy of my photo ID while another has no need for it.

– Most Asylum Officers review the form I-589 with the applicant at the beginning of the interview and allow the applicant to make any needed corrections.  A few officers do not review the form and instead make corrections as needed throughout the interview.  This difference strikes me as substantive because it may affect how an officer views the applicant’s credibility.  If the officer reviews the form at the beginning, and then the applicant’s story is not consistent with the form, the officer can find him not credible.  However, if the officer does not review the form at the beginning of the interview, it is a bit unfair to base an adverse credibility finding on a statement that is not consistent with the form, since the applicant did not have an opportunity to correct any errors.

Well, those are a few differences I’ve noticed.  Whether they have any effect on decisions, I don’t know.  But it seems to me that whenever decision makers use different techniques in their interviews, it is worth noting.

Continue reading

Afghan Asylum Seekers in Limbo

by Jason Dzubow
"I'm still waiting for a decision in my asylum case."

As conditions in Afghanistan have deteriorated, I find myself representing increasing numbers of Afghan asylum seekers. Many are young men who have worked with the United States military. Others are journalists or other media types who have appeared on television in Afghanistan. Still others worked for human rights groups and women’s rights groups.

One thing that my clients have in common is that they are all trying to bring about peaceful, democratic changes to their country.  As a result of their activities, my clients faced threats from the Taliban.  A number of my clients were attacked, and some had close relatives killed by the Taliban.  Because the Afghan government cannot (and in some cases will not) protect them, my clients are seeking asylum in the U.S.

Another thing my Afghan clients have in common is that their cases are being held up for “security” checks.  I’ll explain below why I put the word security in quotation marks.

But first, a bit of background: The majority of aliens who file affirmative asylum cases receive a decision two weeks after their interview.  Apparently, cases with Afghan asylum seekers are reviewed by headquarters.  This takes a lot longer than two weeks.  So far this year, I have been to 11 asylum interviews: five from Afghanistan, six from other countries (five from Ethiopia and one from Iran).  All five of the Afghan cases are still pending.  Of the other six, we have decisions in all cases except one (the Iranian case).  In my longest-pending Afghan asylum case, the applicant was interviewed more than seven months ago; we are still waiting for a decision.

According to an Asylum Officer I spoke to, the reason for the delay has to do with “security.”  Obviously, there are legitimate concerns about people coming from Afghanistan and seeking asylum in the U.S.  But there are several reasons why I am skeptical about these “security” checks.  For one, many of my Afghan clients worked closely with the U.S. military, and they have letters, certificates, and photos (often with high-ranking military and civilian officials, including some who were photographed with President Bush) to prove it.  Such individuals have already been subject to some pretty serious scrutiny, so it is not clear what additional checks are necessary.  Second, all the Afghan asylum seekers were screened for security issues in Afghanistan before they received their U.S. visas.  Since nothing suspicious was found in Afghanistan, it seems unlikely (at best) that anything would turn up during an additional security background check in the United States.  Finally, my clients are currently in the United States.  If they are dangerous, they should not be walking freely around our country for six months (or more) while USCIS checks to see whether they pose a security risk.  If USCIS believed that a particular asylum seeker presented a threat, I image (and I hope) that they would detain the person immediately.

A number of my clients have family members in Afghanistan who are hoping to join their relative in the United States if asylum is approved.  Some of these people are living in precarious circumstances and face threats from the Taliban.  It is frustrating and frightening for my clients and their family members when they have no idea how long until they will receive a decision.  It is not fair to keep people waiting in limbo.  I hope that USCIS will consider improving the processing time for Afghan cases.  If they cannot do that, I hope they will at least provide an estimate to the asylum seekers about how long a decision will take.  Treating asylum seekers with respect and dignity means processing cases as quickly as possible and being as open about the waiting time as circumstances allow.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Immigration Judges Repudiate Asylum Officers

by Jason Dzubow

The Executive Office for Immigration Review has released its Statistical Yearbook for FY 2010.  Page 33 of the report lists the Immigration Court grant rates for affirmative and defensive asylum cases.  According to the report:

There is some difference in the grant rates depending on whether the asylum application was filed affirmatively or defensively.  There are two ways that aliens may request asylum: “affirmatively,” by completing an asylum application and filing it with a DHS Asylum Office; or “defensively,” by requesting asylum before an immigration judge [after the alien has been placed into removal proceedings]. 

The IJ grant rate for affirmative cases is significantly higher than for defensive cases:

Year

 IJ Grant Rate for Affirmative Asylum Cases

IJ Grant Rate for Defensive Asylum Cases

 FY 2006

 51%

 34%

 FY 2007

 51%

 39%

 FY 2008

 51%

 37%

 FY 2009

 55%

 36%

 FY 2010

 61%

 35%

This seems counterintuitive–affirmative cases have already been reviewed by the Asylum Office, which should have granted the applications that qualify for asylum, so the Immigration Courts are only reviewing affirmative cases that have previously been denied.  Defensive cases, on the other hand, come before the Court for the first time, so the judges are reviewing the good cases and the bad cases.  The low grant rate for defensive cases can be explained (many are denied because they are not filed within the one year deadline or because the claims are barred for other reasons, such as criminal convictions), but what interests me is the relatively high grant rate for affirmative cases.

Judges are not pleased by the high number of referred asylum cases.

Each affirmative asylum case has already been reviewed and denied (technically, referred) by the Asylum Office.  Thus, all the affirmative cases that come before the Immigration Court have been examined and rejected by a trained asylum officer.  Why, then, are 61% of those decisions being reversed by Immigration Judges? 

One reason may be that more asylum seekers are represented before judges than before the Asylum Office.  There is no doubt that a good attorney makes a difference in whether a case is granted (88% of unrepresented asylum seekers are denied, as compared with about 55% of represented asylum seekers). 

Also, because Asylum Officers generally do not need to describe their reasons for a denial, they can be more sloppy than IJs.  I experienced this in a recent decision referring one of my clients to court: the Asylum Officer used a boilerplate excuse–that there were “material inconsistencies” in the client’s testimony–to deny the case.  In fact, the client’s testimony was consistent with her affidavit, supporting documents, and country conditions.  However, because the Asylum Officer is not accountable to anyone for his decision, he can deny the case without explaining himself (and in a manner that–to me at least–was intellectually dishonest).   

When Asylum Officers refer cases to court that should be granted, it is a waste of government resources.  It also causes unnecessary stress and expense (not to mention wasted time) for the alien.  I don’t know whether it has been done before, but it would seem worthwhile to study referred cases that have been granted by IJs.  Perhaps such a study would lead to improvements in how the Asylum Offices (or the Immigration Courts) adjudicate cases.

Continue reading

7 Comments

When Silence is Golden: Interpreters and Asylum

by Jason Dzubow
This blog entry is by ace reporter Maria Raquel McFadden.  Ms. McFadden is also a freelance business, legal, and immigration interpreter with 10 years experience.   She has interpreted in various forums including courts, immigration interviews, depositions, and business meetings.  Ms. McFadden is registered with the State of Maryland and can be reached at: Office: 202-709-3602 or Cell: 202-360-2736; mcfadden.maria@gmail.com.          
Asylum seekers are often fraught with misgivings and anxiety about providing information that they feel might make them victims of reprisals should their claim be denied.  It is important that besides being informed of attorney-client confidentiality, asylum seekers be made aware that the entirety of the asylum process is protected by confidentiality laws and regulations. Interpreters are not only bound by these rules but also by their cannon of ethics and standards, which also requires confidentiality.

Like many other professionals, interpreters must follow certain standards of practice while on the job.  Despite the fact that the number and order of cannons in the interpreters’ “Code of Ethics” can vary a bit among accrediting bodies and hiring agencies, a perennial tenet is the one of confidentiality.  

Though once in a while a very special and extraordinary circumstance might occur that can override the principle of confidentiality (such being told  directly the whereabouts of a currently kidnapped victim by a non-English or limited English speaker ), all must bear in mind that this cannon is one of the foremost importance. 
Interpreters often have access to protected, restricted, private and/or sensitive information.  The oath taken by professional interpreters to adhere to  confidentiality assures asylum seekers and all connected to the case (including witnesses) that the facts and circumstances they share with the private bar attorneys, immigration judge or immigration officers, and other U.S. government personnel will not be divulged by the interpreter to an outside party.  
No matter whether the process is an asylum hearing, a credible fear or reasonable fear determination hearing, an interpreter may not share any information he/she has learned (whether orally or in writing) before, during or after the proceeding. 
From time to time, for educational purposes, interpreters do and should share language issues that arise.  However, it is important they never share any identifying information which can include the name of the  asylum seekers, the judge, officer, or representing attorney.
Frequently during the process (at interviews at the asylum office or during attorney-client meetings for example), non-professional “interpreters” are used.  Attorneys and asylum officers should remind those interpreters of their duties in respect to confidentiality. 
When an asylum seeker understands the importance that the court, USCIS, and attorneys place on confidentiality, asylum seekers can be reassured and thus feel more comfortable disclosing all the details of their case, making the process work better for all involved.

Continue reading

Sex for Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

Two female asylum seekers who were offered asylum in exchange for sex can sue the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), ruled the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Xue v. Powell, No. 08-56421 (9th Cir. Sept. 2, 2010).  The two women are Chinese nationals who filed affirmative asylum claims and appeared for interviews at the Asylum Office in Los Angeles.  Asylum Officer Thomas A. Powell, Jr. interviewed each woman and requested sexual favors and money in exchange for granting their asylum applications.  Mr. Powell was convicted in 2004 and sentenced to three years and nine months imprisonment.  He died shortly thereafter.

If this is your Asylum Officer, ask for a supervisor, baby!

In 2001, the two asylum seekers sued Mr. Powell, his supervisor, and the U.S. government.  The District Court dismissed the claims against the U.S. government under the FTCA.  Under the FTCA, the United States is only liable “under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred [California].” See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).  In a split decision, the Ninth Circuit reversed in part, holding that, under California law, the plaintiffs could state a claim for infliction of emotional distress and interference with the civil rights of the plaintiffs.  The case will now be remanded to the District Court for trial.

Meanwhile, one of the asylum seekers received asylum based on her fear of persecution as a Christian.  The other asylum seeker’s case was denied; she claimed a fear of persecution on account of China’s one child policy.  According to the San Francisco Chronicle, she faces deportation after the resolution of her lawsuit.

Continue reading

1 Comment

What Not to Wear in Court

by Jason Dzubow

From a friend, who observes court hearings, but prefers to remain anonymous:

Imagine showing up to one of the most important meetings in your life, wearing a top cut so low that there is an eminent risk of “wardrobe malfunction” or maybe with pants hanging so low it’s a miracle that you’ve not tripped as you entered the room.  

While many people have learned much about courtroom etiquette from television, such as the notion to stand up when the judge enters the courtroom, an aspect that seems to be lacking is the need to dress appropriately.  As the weather becomes warmer and warmer, it seems to bring more and more examples into court of what not to wear as people’s efforts to dress lightly clash with the more formal atmosphere in the court.

Though there is no formal dress code when appearing before immigration court and immigration officers, asylum seekers and their witnesses should keep in mind that in order not to take away the focus from their own or another’s testimony some of the following guidelines should be kept in mind:

Hats, caps, bandanas or any head dress should not be worn unless they form part of one’s religious attire.  Women should avoid wearing tube tops, tank tops, midriff, halter tops, short shorts or any other revealing clothing.  Clothing should not have obscene or profane language or illustrations, nor should one wear gang-related attire.  Clothing must cover all undergarments for both men and women.  It is also best to avoid wearing sports jerseys and brand promotional T-shirts.

If you can wear it to a drag show, it's probably safe to say that you should not wear it in court.

When it comes to shoes, one should avoid wearing flip flops (no matter how expensive they are) and no one should come to court in bare feet (You’d be surprised.)

Avoid wearing heavy perfumes, as someone might be allergic, and the hearing or interview you have been waiting for so long might have to be postponed when that person becomes ill.

It is a good idea to also remember that during summer, most buildings have central air and can be very cold, if not downright freezing.  Hearings, interviews, and even the wait for either can be very lengthy.  Carrying a sweater or jacket is a wise move, as this item can be removed if the court/interview room is warm.

One of the best ways to think about what you should wear is to ask yourself: Is this something I would wear to my church, mosque, synagogue, temple or other place of worship.  If you can wear it there, chances are you can wear it to court.  And while fashion consultant might not be part of an attorney’s formal job description, it would be good for the client to be reminded that dressing neatly and properly for court is an important part of the courtroom etiquette.

Dressing properly for court is a way to show one’s respect to the court and the proceedings; this same courtesy should be extended to USCIS officers.  After all, in the end, it is you who benefits.

Continue reading

2 Comments

The “Unobservable Factors” that Influence Asylum Decisions

by Jason Dzubow

I recently came across an interesting article from the Journal of Refugee Studies, “A Rare Examination of Typically Unobservable Factors in US Asylum Decisions,” which analyzes data from 81 asylum cases to determine the “unobservable factors” that influenced the decisions in those cases.  The authors had access to cases litigated by the Human Rights Initiative of North Texas (“HRI”) between 1998 and 2005.  As the authors explain, the small number of cases and the selection bias in the samples (HRI only takes cases deemed to have a good prospect of success) makes their findings suggestive only.  Nevertheless, the study points to some interesting possibilities concerning how decisions are made. 

The authors refer to prior studies, which correlate asylum grants with factors other than a “well-founded fear” of persecution, for example, “the judge’s prior work experience (particularly prior INS experience), and legal representation strongly influence asylum outcomes.”  Also–

While some legal scholars and human rights activists might expect that human rights conditions and evidence of credible fear of persecution would be the most important factors in the determination of whether to prevent a particular asylum seeker from being returned to a situation that would threaten their life or physical integrity, these empirical studies suggest that outcomes are more likely to be based on economic and security concerns of the state than the merit of the claim.

Unlike most prior studies, the authors here, Linda Camp Keith and Jennifer S. Holmes, had access to the asylum seekers’ files, and could look at many factors–gender, marital status, education level, religion–that are not normally available.  Some of the findings are quite surprising, and are examined below: 

Gender

The authors write: “we expect that a female will be less likely to receive asylum due to possible cultural biases of the decision makers concerning women as viable threats to government and due to possible cultural differences that affect women’s credibility.”  In fact, the authors found that within the cases studied, being female decreased the chances of an asylum grant by a statistically significant amount.  Indeed, of all the factors studied (except possibly religion), gender was the most significant “unobservable factor” that determined the outcome in an asylum seeker’s case. 

Education

The authors expected that asylum seekers with higher levels of education might be viewed as economic migrants.  They found “applicants with a primary or middle school education had greater success than higher educated applicants.”  However, they noted that “the sample size is small in the primary and middle categories” (although the results do seem to have some statistical significance).  They concluded, “Overall, there does not seem to be much variation in the grant rate due to educational attainment.”  People who speak English, however, are statistically more likely to succeed in their cases. 

In my own experience, I have always believed that more educated applicants are more likely to win asylum.  More educated people are better able to understand the system, they are more likely to articulate their stories consistently (which decision makers rely on to judge credibility), it is easier for well-educated decision makers to relate to them, and they are considered less likely to become a burden on our society.  I imagine that these positive factors outweigh any negative perception that well-educated asylum seekers are economic migrants.

 

What are the odds that this single Christian female would qualify for asylum?

Religion

The authors distinguished between asylum seekers with Judeo-Christian religions and those with non-Judeo-Christian religions.  They expected that asylum seekers with non-Judeo-Christian religions would be more likely to win asylum.  In fact, the authors found that having a non-Judeo-Christian religion was the most influential “unobservable factor” in gaining asylum.  Their results in this regard were considered statistically significant.

This is the one observation that seems to me flawed.  The authors’ cases come from an NGO in Texas, and so many of their Judeo-Christian asylum seekers likely come from Mexico, Central America, and South America.  People from these countries are very unlikely to gain asylum in the U.S.  Asylum seekers with non-Judeo-Christian religions, on the other hand, likely come from other regions of the world–regions where it is more likely that they will be granted asylum.  For example, many of my cllients are asylum seekers from Ethiopia and most are Christian.  They have a very high likelihood of success in their cases (usually based on political persecution).  Thus, had the authors used data from an NGO in my area (where we have many Christian asylum seekers), their results concerning religion would likely have been different.

Marital Status

A 2000 study suggested that single people were less likely to gain asylum in the United States, presumably because decision makers view them as likely economic migrants.  However, the authors of the current study found that being married significantly decreases the odds of an asylum grant.  I’ve never noticed any difference in the grant rates for my married vs. single clients.  However, whenever an asylum applicant lists numerous young children on their application, it makes me worry that an adjudicator will be more hesitant to grant, knowing that the grantee’s entire family will be “following to join” him in the United States.

Some Thoughts

As the authors point out, their sample size is small, and the results are only suggestive.  Nevertheless, it seems safe to say that “unobservable factors”–or at least factors that are not related to the legal requirements for asylum–do influence decisions in asylum cases.  I imagine the same is true in criminal cases and civil cases.  Not that this makes the situation any better, but the fact is, such “improper” influences are difficult to eliminate in any type of case.  More study is clearly needed.  If Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers can be made aware of the biases that influence their decisions, perhaps that will be a first step towards reducing those biases.

Continue reading

1 Comment

The Refugee Protection Act and Asylum Interviews

by Jason Dzubow

Under INA § 235(b), an alien who appears at the border and claims asylum or expresses a fear of persecution must be interviewed.  The Refugee Protection Act would require DHS to record these interviews.

A DHS employee demonstrates the agency's latest recording equipment

Currently, asylum interviews at the border (or the airport) are generally not recorded.  As a result, there are often disputes about what the alien said at the interview.  For example, I worked on a case recently where an Ethiopian asylum seeker entered the United States at the Mexican border.  He was immediately detained and requested asylum.  His friend and traveling companion served as my client’s interpreter.  The Border Patrol agent wrote down the client’s responses to the agent’s questions.  The written statement was not consistent with my client’s statements in court, and the IJ found the client’s testimony incredible; she denied asylum.  On appeal, the BIA reversed and remanded the case for, among other things, a more thorough examination of what happened at the border.  Had the border conversation been recorded, the IJ could have more definitively determined whether an inconsistency existed, and could have made a more accurate credibility determination.

IJs often rely on prior inconsistent statements to make adverse credibility findings, and I have worked on a number of cases where prior statements were used for impeachment purposes.  Such statements are often not recorded (neither the Border Patrol nor the Asylum Office records interviews).  Thus, the accuracy of the prior statements is frequently an issue.  If the interviews were recorded, we would have a more accurate record, and hence, more accurate credibility determinations.  The RPA provides for recorded interviews at the border.  It should also provide for recorded interviews at the Asylum Office.

Continue reading

3 Comments

An Asylee’s Story

by Jason Dzubow

Below is the story of an asylee from Eritrea.  She prefers to keep her name confidential:

I was born in 1979 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. I was an Ethiopian at birth but I am an Eritrean national.

Eritrea is a little known country in East Africa of about 5 million people. Eritrea was forcefully annexed with Ethiopia in 1962. Freedom fighters struggled for Eritrea’s independence against the Derg, the Ethiopian government from 1974 to 1991. The struggle ended in 1991, when the freedom fighters won the fight. A referendum was held in 1993. Eritreans overwhelmingly voted to be independent from Ethiopia. My parents decided it was time to move to Eritrea. We moved to Eritrea for good in 1993.

The Beauty of Culture by Eritrean artist Yosief Indrias
I came to the U.S. on August 10, 2007, a year after I left my country. I left my country in August 2006. I won a scholarship to pursue higher studies in Geneva, Switzerland. While in Geneva, I received a tuition waiver to study at a university in Washington, DC.

I am an Evangelical Christian. While I went to Evangelical Christian churches since I was a child, I did not become a devoted Evangelical Christian until March 2005. Unfortunately, that was after the faith was banned in Eritrea and when hundreds of evangelical Christians were thrown in jail for their faith. In 2001, the government declared that only Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran and Islam were complying churches. All other faiths, including Evangelical/Pentecostals, Jehovah Witnesses, Bahai, and Seventh Day Adventists, were declared non-compliant faiths and banned.

Going to Bible or Prayer cells in houses or even carrying the Bible could lead to arrest, detention or even death in some cases. That did not stop my desire to attend Bible study and prayer meetings. I was eager to learn God’s Word and become a mature Christian. I went to a friend’s house to pray and study the Bible.

At the time I left Eritrea, the government imprisoned hundreds of Evangelical Christians. The government did not show any signs of stopping the persecution against Evangelical Christians. I was too afraid to go back home when I finished my studies in the United States. I talked to a couple of my professors about my intention to apply for asylum. They strongly advised me against applying for asylum without legal representation. One of my professors talked to the Immigration Clinic of the Law School. The clinic contacted me and set up an appointment to interview me. Two interns at the clinic interviewed me and made copies of my documents.

About a week later, the clinic notified me that it would take my case and represent me in my asylum application. I was relieved to hear that news. My next concern was to get my asylum application filed before the one year dead line. I had only a few weeks to write my affidavit, gather documents and mail the package. I had more interviews with the interns at the clinic to write my affidavit. After the affidavit was ready, the package was mailed on August 1, 2008, just a few days before the one year deadline.

The next step was to wait for my fingerprint appointment. I had my fingerprints taken on August 21. Because the interns that prepared my application finished their internship at the end of August, the professor asked for a continuance of my asylum interview, which was originally set for the beginning of September. My interview was rescheduled for September 15, 2008. Another intern was assigned to be my student council. I had a moot interview with the clinic team a few days before my interview. The moot helped me to get prepared for the interview. I felt less anxious about the interview at the asylum office.

Then came September 15. I arrived at the asylum office early. I met the professor and the student counsel outside the building. My interview was scheduled at 9:00 AM. The three of us got up to the third floor. We sat in the waiting room. Almost three hours went by before the asylum officer called me. The long wait made me nervous.

Around 11:50, I was called by the asylum officer. We followed her to the interview room. After the oath was administered, the officer started to ask me questions. She typed my answers to her questions. She asked me questions for an hour and a half. I had not anticipated some of the questions but I had a feeling it went well. The officer told me the decision will be sent to me by mail in about two weeks.

A month and a half went by before I heard anything from the asylum office. I was very anxious to know the decision. When I get home from work, the first thing I did was to go to the kitchen table to see if anything came in the mail for me. I was so happy when I finally got the good news. It was a huge relief. I did not have to go back to my country and risks persecution from the government of Eritrea.

My getting asylum in the United States was wonderful news. However, my personal life got a little complicated because of it. My fiancé had proposed to me after I had left the country and I said yes! Now that I can not go back to Eritrea because of my asylum status, and because it is difficult for him to leave the country, we do not know when we will see each other again. We can only hope that it is sooner than we think. For now, I’m happy that I am safe until I meet the love of my life and start a new journey.

Continue reading

2 Comments