Question: Who do you think is more likely to deny an asylum case, an Immigration Judge appointed by a Republican president or an Immigration Judge appointed by a Democratic president?
As far as I can tell, no one has ever researched this question before; so our team of statisticians here at The Asylumist spent the last few months crunching the numbers, and we now have our answer. If you’re like me, you might find their conclusion a bit surprising. (more…)
Here’s one thing that seems clear about the management at EOIR–the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the office that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts–no one who works there has ever represented a noncitizen in Immigration Court. How do I know? If the leadership at EOIR had any experience in court or with clients, they would not be implementing so many misguided, destructive, and ineffective policies that are doing great harm to immigrants, their attorneys, and even to DHS attorneys (the prosecutors in court).
The latest dumb idea involves an effort to administratively close cases where the respondent (the noncitizen in Immigration Court) may have some temporary or permanent relief available from USCIS. (more…)
The Associated Press recently reported that DHS will implement a “limited experiment” to provide detained migrants at the border with “access to legal counsel.” The new approach will start with a “tiny number of migrants,” and then perhaps expand from there. DHS is partnering with an as-yet-unnamed organization to supply the attorneys, who will help with credible fear interviews (initial evaluations of asylum eligibility for newly arriving migrants). The program is part of DHS’s efforts to accommodate the end of Title 42, which had restricted the number of people eligible to seek asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, and which is expected to wrap up in a few weeks.
This new “limited experiment” calls to mind the ongoing effort by advocates to create an immigration public defender’s service, which would provide everyone in Immigration Court access to a lawyer. These efforts have not made much progress, and currently, very few noncitizens in Immigration Court receive a government-appointed attorney.
Here, I want to discuss the benefits of universal representation for asylum seekers, including those in court and at the Asylum Office. I also want to suggest an alternative to representation by lawyers, who are expensive and relatively scarce. (more…)
I recently saw a shocking statistic: 76% of cases denied by the Asylum Office and referred to Immigration Court were granted by Immigration Judges. If this number is accurate (and the source–TRAC Immigration–has always been very reliable), it means that IJs essentially overrule Asylum Officer denials in 3 out of 4 cases. Put another way, Immigration Judges are finding that Asylum Officers make the wrong decision in most of their cases. Can this really be true? What’s going on here? (more…)
Immigration Courts across the U.S. have been randomly rescheduling and advancing cases without regard to attorney availability or whether we have the capacity to complete our cases. The very predictable result of this fiasco is that lawyers are stressed and overworked, our ability to adequately prepare cases has been reduced, and–worst of all–asylum seekers are being deprived of their right to a fair hearing. Besides these obvious consequences, the policy of reshuffling court cases is having other insidious effects that are less visible, but no less damaging. Here, I want to talk about some of the ongoing collateral damage caused by EOIR’s decision to toss aside due process of law in favor of reducing the Immigration Court backlog. (more…)
To paraphrase Forrest Gump, Immigration Court is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you’re going to get. Also, some of the chocolate is poison.
For many applicants in Immigration Court, the most important factor in determining success is not the person’s story or the evidence or the quality of their lawyer. It is the judge who is randomly assigned to the case. According to TRAC Immigration, a non-profit that tracks asylum approval rates in Immigration Court, Immigration Judge (“IJ”) approval rates vary widely. For the period 2017 to 2022, asylum approval rates ranged from 0% (a judge in Houston) to 99% (a judge in San Francisco). Of the 635 IJs listed on the TRAC web page, 125 granted asylum in less than 10% of their cases. At the other extreme, nine IJs granted asylum more than 90% of the time.
Based solely on these numbers, there is a 20% chance (1 in 5) that your IJ denies at least 90% of the asylum cases that he adjudicates. That’s pretty frightening. But there is much more to the story, which we will explore below. (more…)
I recently read an article in the Washington Post about the treatment of political activists in Iran: “Protesters arrested in Iran face a justice system stacked against them.” Political detainees in Iran are denied due process of law, denied access to a lawyer, and forced to litigate their cases in a tribunal that acts more like a prosecutor than like a neutral arbiter. Reading about the situation in Iran, I couldn’t help but think of my own clients’ experience with EOIR–the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the agency that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Here, we’ll look at some of the practices in Iran and compare them to what we see every day in U.S. Immigration Court. (more…)
It is not easy to convey the magnitude of the ongoing disaster at EOIR, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the office that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts. Simply stated, the agency is rescheduling and advancing hundreds–maybe thousands–of cases without notifying attorneys, checking whether we are available to attend the hearings or checking whether we have the capacity to complete the cases.
On its face, this appears to be a mere scheduling problem. But in effect, it is a vicious and unprecedented assault on immigrants, their attorneys, and due process of law. (more…)
We learned last week that hackers have been using the Arlington Immigration Court phone number to make “spoof” calls requesting personal information from the recipients. EOIR (the Executive Office for Immigration Review – the office that oversees the Immigration Courts) warns that, to “protect yourself, be wary of answering phone calls from numbers you do not recognize” and never “give out your personal information over the phone to individuals you do not know.” Good advice. But how do you know whether a call from the Immigration Court is, in fact, fraudulent?
Fear not, for I stand ready to assist. Below are the top ten ways to know whether a phone call from EOIR is a “spoof” or the real deal. If you receive any of the following calls, hang up immediately because it ain’t the Immigration Court– (more…)
I was very sorry to learn recently about the death of Immigration Judge David Crosland. Judge Crosland had been an Immigration Judge since 1997. I first met him when he arrived in Arlington, Virginia in about 2008. He later transferred to the Baltimore Immigration Court. Over the years, I have had many cases with Judge Crosland. In fact, I was scheduled to see him for an Individual Hearing tomorrow, for an Iraqi woman seeking protection from militias and terrorists in her home country.
Judge Crosland had his own style. Unlike most IJs, he started his hearings by questioning the applicants about their activities and instances of harm. Once he finished and established a framework for the case, he would turn things over to the applicant’s attorney. We then had to build on his framework (and often correct issues that came up during his questioning). While this was a challenging way to present a case, and left us with more uncertainty about how the direct examination would go, it also allowed Judge Crosland to hone in on aspects of the case that were of most concern to him. I will say that this was not my favorite way to present a case, and applicants were often confused by the IJ’s questions (and his soft voice). Nevertheless, Judge Crosland almost always “got it right” and it was hard for me to disagree with his decisions, even if we did not get the outcome we wanted. (more…)
It’s common these days to find asylum seekers at the Asylum Office and in Immigration Court who filed their asylum application, form I-589, five, six, seven or more years ago. During that time, some information on the form becomes out of date. Also, new events occur which need to be added to the form. What is the best and most efficient way to update your asylum application at the Asylum Office and in court? (more…)
The Department of Homeland Security (the prosecutor in Immigration Court) has been implementing new rules related to its “enforcement priorities.” These rules apply to people who have cases pending in Immigration Court, meaning that the U.S. government is trying to deport them. Not surprisingly, the government wants to deport some people more than others. Under the new rules, cases that are not a priority for removal may be dismissed as a matter of prosecutorial discretion or PD. When that happens, the government has stopped the removal/deportation process and the noncitizen is able to remain in the United States.
Here, we’ll talk about who might qualify for PD, the different types of PD, and how to request PD from DHS. (more…)
Let me tell you about some recent events in my office.
We had two cases set for individual hearings this week. Both cases involve noncitizens who have been waiting years for their decisions, both have family members abroad who they hope to bring to the U.S. if their claims are successful, and both have strong cases for asylum.
For the first case, we prepared and submitted evidence earlier in the pandemic, but the case was postponed at the last minute due to Covid. We were hoping that the new date would stick, given that restrictions are easing and the court now has a system to do cases remotely (called Webex). As the date approached, we filed additional evidence and scheduled two practice sessions for the client. We also regularly checked the Immigration Court online portal, which lists our court dates, to be sure the case was still on the docket. (more…)
Due to the pandemic, many Immigration Court hearings now take place via WebEx, which is similar to Zoom. There are certainly disadvantages to presenting an asylum case by video. It’s more difficult to relate to the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), for instance. And it’s not easy to submit additional evidence at the last minute. On the other hand, in the words of John Adams, “Every problem is an opportunity in disguise!” In our case, WebEx presents some interesting new opportunities.
Having now done a couple WebEx hearings, I have been thinking of how to use the new service to my clients’ advantage. Below are some ideas that I have yet to implement, but which could assure victory, even in the most difficult case. If we try any of these strategies in my office, I’ll be sure to let you know how things turn out… (more…)
For “respondents” (non-citizens in removal proceedings) and their lawyers, Individual Hearings in Immigration Court are a big deal. Evidence must be gathered. Affidavits have to be prepared, checked, and re-checked. Witnesses must be identified, convinced to attend the hearing, and prepared for trial. Respondents practice their testimony. In most cases, the noncitizen has been waiting for many months or years for the trial date. The result of the trial determines whether the applicant can remain in the United States or must leave. When a respondent receives asylum, he is permitted to stay in the U.S. If he loses, he may be deported to a country where he faces danger. In many cases, respondents have family members here or overseas who are counting on them, and the outcome of the case affects the family members as well as the respondent. All of this provokes anxiety and anticipation. In short, Individual Hearings are life-changing events that profoundly effect respondents and their families.
So what happens when the Individual Hearing is canceled? (more…)