Way back in the summer of 2015, immigration lawyers started to notice that EOIR was scheduling hundreds, maybe thousands, of Immigration Court cases for a single date: November 29, 2019. Supposedly, this was a holding date, and all those cases would be rescheduled. Now, November 29, 2019 is upon us. As such, I thought it might be nice to re-visit my blog post from back in 2015, when all this seemed a long way off (plus, it being Thanksgiving, I wasn’t much in the mood to write something new). Have things changed since 2015? You bet. But mostly for the worse, as there are now over one million cases in the Immigration Court backlog (in contrast to 2015, when there were about 456,000 cases in the backlog). Anyway, without further ado, here is my blog post from July 1, 2015–
Postcard from the Apocalypse: November 29, 2019
BEGIN TRANSMISSION:
If you’re reading this, maybe there’s still hope. Today is November 30, 2019. Dawn. Yesterday, the world came to an end.
This is how the Immigration Court backlog ends.
I am one of the few survivors. The very few. And I am sending this transmission back in time by Tachyon beam in a desperate attempt to avert the apocalypse and to save humanity. By my calculation, this message should be received in July 2015. Back then, in your present, it was not too late. Things could have—could still—turn out differently.
What happened? Nuclear war? Environmental degradation? Rapture? No. Such disasters, we could have dealt with. It was something at once more horrifying and more mundane. More innocent, yet more insidious. Small, yet massive. You get the idea.
“What was it, then?!” you plead. Listen well, my friend, and I will tell you the tale of November 29, 2019. On that day, the U.S. Immigration Court system collapsed upon itself, creating a singularity–a black hole, if you will–that absorbed everything in its path: First it took foreigners. No one seemed to mind. Then it took hippies, Libertarians, bachelorettes, and then people who enjoy listening to the Redirect immigration podcast (seriously, though, you should be listening to that). Finally, it took everyone and everything else. Now, all that’s left is me and a few others. We don’t have much time.
It all began innocently enough: Immigration Courts started scheduling a dozen or so aliens for hearings at the same time and place. Didn’t they know that this violates a basic law of physics and, as it turns out, a basic law of Immigration Court—No two aliens can occupy the same hearing space at the same time! Read your Archimedes, people! Isaac Newton! Anybody?
Oh, the powers-that-be at EOIR (the Executive Office for Immigration Review) didn’t think it was a big deal. They were violating the alien’s due process rights, but only a little. And it was for a good cause—efficiency, so what did it matter? But then they got arrogant. Master Calendar Hearings with 40, 50, 60 or more people. Half a dozen respondents on the same transcript, answering charges and conceding removability en masse. Due process protections eroding. But so slowly that no one noticed. The lawyers, the aliens, all of us became complacent. We let it happen.
And then things got worse. In 2014, Immigration Judges started scheduling scores, then hundreds, then thousands of aliens to appear on a single day—November 29, 2019. They claimed this was some sort of “holding” date; that the cases would be rescheduled. Lies! Instead of making the hard journey up Mt. Sinai to seek justice, they worshipped below at the idols of efficiency and budget cuts. Who sows the wind shall reap the whirlwind!
Before anyone really understood what was happening, tens of thousands of immigrants were scheduled to appear in Immigration Court on that fateful day, November 29, 2019 (may it be obliterated from memory). Throughout November, they gathered. They came by themselves or with their families. Small children without parents. Old people. People who had lived in the U.S. for years and people who were fresh off the hovercraft (hovercrafts were very popular in 2019). They filled the Immigration Court waiting rooms and spilled into the hallways. Masses of people, huddled together. Waiting. Soon, the court buildings were full, but still they came.
EOIR saw what was happening. They could have stopped the madness. They could have rescheduled the cases. But they didn’t. Why? Was it a conspiracy that reached to the highest levels of government? Or had some scheduling clerk gone rogue? I suppose we’ll never know, and anyway, it doesn’t much matter.
The more the foreigners gathered, the more they came. It was exponential, logarithmic, seismic. Soon, it wasn’t only people facing deportation. People with TPS started showing up. They were followed by conditional residents who were still married (miracle of miracles). Then there were people with valid visas, still in lawful status: B’s, TN’s, and L’s, Q’s and R’s, H1-B’s and E’s, all varieties of A’s and J’s, and even the odd I or C visa holder. I knew we were in trouble by the time the lawful permanent residents began showing up. And when U.S. citizens started arriving, it was clear that something terrible would happen.
And then it did. The collective gravity of all those people began feeding on itself, swallowing everything and everyone in its path–a black hole. But like I say, if you’re reading this, there’s still hope. There is a simple solution to the Immigration Court backlog. It’s so obvious, that it’s a wonder no one noticed it before. All you have to do is…
MaryBeth Keller was the Chief Immigration Judge of the United States from September 2016 until July 2019. She was the first woman to hold that position. The Asylumist sat down with her to discuss her career, her tenure as CIJ, and her hope for the future of the Immigration Courts.
Asylumist: Tell us about your career. How did you get to be the Chief Immigration Judge of the United States?
Judge Keller: I was appointed to the position by Attorney General Loretta Lynch in 2016. By that time, I had been at EOIR (the Executive Office for Immigration Review) for 28 years, and had a lot of experience with and knowledge of the entire organization, especially the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (“OCIJ”) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).
After law school at the University of Virginia, I clerked for state court judges in Iowa. I wanted to return to DC, and in those days – the late 1980s – there were a lot of options. I submitted my resume to a federal government database and was selected to interview at the BIA for a staff attorney position (they liked the fact that I had taken an immigration law class with Professor David Martin at UVA). At the interview, I knew it would be an incredible job. The BIA is the highest level administrative body in immigration law, and the people I met seemed happy to be there. I thought I would stay maybe two years and then move on, but I ended up remaining with EOIR for 31 years.
MaryBeth Keller
I was at the BIA for about 15 years, nine of those as a manager. In my early days as a staff attorney, I helped revitalize the BIA union, which was basically defunct when I arrived. Some employees had wanted to simply decertify the union, but a colleague and I convinced the majority of attorneys and staff that it could be a useful organization, so they voted to keep it. I was the union president for several years. After I later became a manager, my colleagues joked that my penance for having led the BIA union was to have to deal with the union from the other side. I helped then-Chairman Paul Schmidt revamp and restructure the BIA in the mid-1990s.
From there, I served as EOIR’s General Counsel and was involved with many reforms, including the institution of the first fraud program and a program to address complaints about the conduct of Immigration Judges. This ultimately led to my appointment as the first Assistant Chief Immigration Judge (“ACIJ”) for Conduct and Professionalism (“C&P”). At the time, David Neal was the Chief Immigration Judge, and we built the C&P program from whole cloth. In addition to responsibility for judge conduct, performance, and disciplinary issues, I supervised courts from headquarters and was the management representative to the judges’ union. All of this experience led to me to the position of Chief Judge.
Asylumist: What does the CIJ do? How is that position different from the EOIR Director or General Counsel?
Judge Keller: I view the CIJ’s job as leading the trial level immigration courts to execute the mission of EOIR, including, most importantly, managing the dockets to best deliver due process. In practical terms, this involved hiring and training judges and staff, determining the supervisory structure of the courts, directing the management team of Deputies, ACIJs, and Court Administrators, overseeing the Headquarters team that supports the field, including an administrative office, a business development team, legal advisers, an organizational results unit, and an interpreters unit. The CIJ also collaborates with the other senior executives such as the Chairman of the BIA, the General Counsel, and the Director of Administration to coordinate agency activities on a broader scale. In years past, the CIJ acted as a high-level liaison with counterparts in DHS, the private bar, and other governmental and nongovernmental groups.
The regulations–specifically 8 C.F.R. 1003.9–describe the function of the CIJ. I kept a copy of that regulation on my wall. The regulations set forth the CIJ’s authority to issue operational instructions and policy, provide for training of the immigration judges and other staff, set priorities or time frames for the resolution of cases, and manage the docket of matters to be decided by the immigration judges.
Despite the regulation, under the current Administration, much of the CIJ’s, authority has been assumed by the Director’s Office or the newly created Office of Policy. Court operational instructions, court policy, the provision of training, setting priorities and time frames for case disposition, and many other matters are now being performed by the EOIR Director’s Office, with minimal input from the CIJ and OCIJ management. I do recognize the regulation setting forth the authority of the Director, as well as the fact that the CIJ’s authority is subject to the Director’s supervision. However, reliance on career employees and specifically the career senior executives (Senior Executive Service or SES) at the head of each EOIR component is significantly diminished now. I believe that is compromising the effectiveness of EOIR as a whole. Senior Executives have leadership skills and incredible institutional knowledge and experience that should bridge that gap between policy and operations. They should be a part of developing the direction of the agency and its structure to most effectively accomplish its functions, but are instead largely sidelined and relegated to much more perfunctory tasks. I worry that people with valuable skills will not be satisfied with decreased levels of responsibility, and will leave the agency. This will make it more difficult for EOIR to meet the challenges it is facing.
To answer the question as to how the CIJ position is different from the Director and General Counsel, the EOIR Director manages all the components of the Agency (BIA, OCIJ, Administration, and OGC) and reports to the Deputy Attorney General. The EOIR General Counsel provides legal and other advice to the EOIR component heads and the Director.
Asylumist: What were your goals and accomplishments as CIJ? Is there anything you wanted to do but could not get done?
Judge Keller: I was fortunate to serve as the CIJ at a time of many changes: Hiring an unprecedented number of IJs, finally beginning to implement electronic filing, and creating new ways to effectively complete cases. At the same time, we faced challenges, such as the ever-changing prioritization of certain types of cases, an increased focus on speed of adjudication, and the creation of the new Office of Policy within the agency, which was given far-reaching authority.
Amid these changes, one of my goals was to use my experience at the agency and my credibility to reassure judges and staff that, despite any changes, our mission of delivering fair hearings and fair decisions would remain unchanged. I always told new classes of judges that their primary responsibility was to conduct fair hearings and make fair decisions. Due process is what we do. And if we don’t get that right, we are not fulfilling the mission of the immigration court. I had the sense that my presence as CIJ gave people some level of security that we were holding on to that mission during all of the change.
Another goal was to hire more staff. I thought I would have more control over hiring and court management than I ultimately did. In terms of hiring, while we greatly increased the number of IJs, it is important to remember that IJs cannot function without support staff: Court administrators, legal assistants, clerks, interpreters, and others. The ratio is about 1-5, judges to support staff. Our hope was also to have one law clerk per IJ and we made some major progress in that regard. It might be wiser for EOIR to take a breather from hiring more judges and focus on hiring support staff, because that is imperative for the court to function. Overall, I was not able to prioritize staff hiring as I would have liked, nor was I confident that my office’s input had much impact on hiring decisions.
Aside from hiring many more judges, some of the positive changes we made while I was there included implementing shortened oral decisions–we do not need a 45-page decision in every case. Shorter decisions, where appropriate, are vital to increasing efficiency. We also encouraged more written decisions. It seems counterintuitive, but written decisions can actually be more efficient than oral decisions. If you have the written material available, as well as law clerks, and the administrative time to review the decision, written decisions save the time that would be spent delivering the oral decision and that time can be used for additional hearings. For this purpose, we greatly increased the accessibility of legal resources for both judges and staff through the development of a highly detailed and searchable user-friendly electronic database of caselaw, decisions, and other reference material.
Importantly, we were also working on ways to replace the standard scheduling based on Individual and Master Calendar Hearings. Instead, in a manner more like other courts, we would schedule cases according to the particular needs of the case, including creating, for example, a motions docket, a bond docket, a short-matters docket. Cases would be sent to certain dockets depending on what issues needed to be addressed, and then move through the process as appropriate from there. Different judges might work on one case, depending on what was needed. During the course of this process, many cases would resolve at the earliest possible point, and some would fall out–people leave the country, they obtain other relief, etc. But in the meantime, such cases would not have taken up a normally-allotted four hour Individual Calendar hearing block in the IJ’s schedule. We were looking to do at least three things: Secure a certain trial date at the start of proceedings, allot time judiciously to each matter, and reduce the time between hearings. If the immigration courts could successfully transition to this model, it would improve the timeliness and rate of completion of final decisions.
While I was CIJ, we also looked to see how other courts dealt with issues such as technology. For example, we went to see the electronic systems at the Fairfax County, Virginia court. That system is more advanced than EOIR’s, and it would, for example, allow a judge to give advisals that are simultaneously translated into different languages for different listeners. This would eliminate the time it takes to do individual advisals, without sacrificing the face-to-face time with the judge. We also investigated video remote interpreting, which is having the interpreter in the courtroom via video, so everyone can see and hear each other as if they were in the same place. IT infrastructure to properly support such initiatives is very expensive, but is obviously currently available and used by other court systems. Changes like improving the interpretation system and implementing e-filing and a user friendly electronic processing system would make a profound difference in how the courts operate.
I believe that some of these ideas are still being considered, but the problem is that there does not seem to be much patience for changes that are not a quick fix. I had hoped to move things further than we were able to, but we did make progress as I discussed.
As another example of a positive accomplishment, EOIR is now very effectively using more contractors for administrative support. This was started by Juan Osuna when he was Director of EOIR, and it has been highly successful. Because our growth has been so rapid, contract employees allow us to get top-notch people quickly, and gives us the flexibility to easily replace someone whose performance is not up to speed. Contractors are not a substitute for permanent employees, but can bridge the gap between a vacancy and a new hire. Once contractors have some experience, they can apply for permanent positions and by then, we have good knowledge of their skills and can hire experienced workers.
Finally, a major accomplishment was that I was the first female Chief Immigration Judge. Even though my experience was extensive, I still had to fight to get the job, including nine hours of interviews. At the time, I think I underestimated how much the workplace was still unaccustomed to women in particular positions. The emails I received after I left the job were astounding. Men and women alike wrote to tell me how much it meant to them to have a female CIJ.
Asylumist: How did things at EOIR change between the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration?
Judge Keller: Things now are unlike any time in the past. As I think we have been seeing throughout government during this Administration, the difference seems to be that there is now a fundamental distrust of people and organizations in the federal government. Over three decades, I have worked through a variety of administrations at all points on the political spectrum. Long-time federal employees are very accustomed to altering course when new administrations come in, whether or not the political parties change. Many employees and executives like me welcomed change as an opportunity to move their organizations forward and make the delivery of their services better. But if those in political power do not trust their subordinates and the functions of the agencies they run, it’s a very different and difficult scenario.
Some of the “small p” political pressure was happening by the end of the Obama Administration. For example, we saw this with children’s cases and the instruction we received from Justice Department leaders in political positions to prioritize those cases on our dockets. Still, in that instance, once the political goal was set, the best way to accomplish the goal, and even its ongoing feasibility, was largely left to senior staff in the agency with operational expertise to implement or to ultimately advise superiors that a different course of action might be needed. Now, very often both the political and the operational decisions down to the smallest details are dictated from above. For example, even my emails and communications to staff were edited from above. Aside from the very questionable advisability of having operational determinations made by persons with no operational expertise, this approach subjects the court process to claims that it is not neutrally deciding cases but instead deciding cases in the manner that political leaders would like.
Until recently, I had never really thought very hard about an Article I court for immigration cases. I thought that the line between politics and neutral adjudication was being walked. There was no major concern from my perspective about EOIR managers navigating that line. Now, the level of impact of political decisions is so extraordinary that I wonder whether we do need to remove the immigration courts from the Department of Justice. I’ve just started to seriously consider the validity of this idea and I need to do more research and thinking about it. The American Bar Association’s recommendations are very persuasive and of significant interest to me. Before, I would not have thought it necessary.
Of course, moving the Immigration Courts to Article I status would not solve all our problems, but it could free us from some of the questions that have been raised over the years about politicized hiring, how cases are being politically prioritized, and whether that is appropriate for a court.
Another large change came in our ability to talk to those we serve. To best function, you have to talk to stakeholders on both sides: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the private bar/respondents. This used to be standard procedure in past administrations, and it was done at both the upper and ground levels. Recently, such conversations were much more limited, and took place primarily at higher levels, often above my position and that of my Deputies. This change was touted as a way to streamline the Agency’s messaging system, but cutting off other forms of communication is detrimental, and I think EOIR has been hampered by our inability to talk at different levels to stakeholders.
We previously had a great relationship with the American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”). For example, when I was working on conduct and professionalism for Immigration Judges, AILA was a great help. At the time, AILA’s message was the same as our message (poor conduct of adjudicators and representatives should be addressed), and we successfully partnered for a long time. Similarly, the CIJ previously had regular interactions with DHS’s Principal Legal Advisor and others in the DHS management chain, but that is no longer the case. Another change to the management structure that I believe was ill-advised was abolishing the “portfolio” ACIJs who bore targeted responsibility for several very important subjects to immigration court management: Judge conduct and professionalism, training, and vulnerable populations. In my experience, having officials whose specialized function was to oversee programs in these areas increased the integrity, accessibility, credibility, and efficiency of the court.
Asylumist: While you were CIJ, EOIR implemented quotas. IJs are now supposed to complete 700 cases per year. Can you comment on this?
Judge Keller: Many different court systems have performance goals and I am generally in favor of those. But the question is, How do you establish and implement them? Are you consulting the managers and IJs about it? How do you come up with the goals? Should they be uniform across the courts? The current requirements were not developed by me or my management team. Numeric expectations alone are not going to fix things. Timeliness is more important in my view than specific numbers. Moreover, the way that the emphasis is being placed on these numbers now sends the wrong message to both the parties and our judges and court staff. Also, court staff and stakeholders would more likely buy into such a change if they understood how the goal was developed, and why. My experience is that IJs are generally over-achievers and they want to do well and will meet or exceed any goals you set. In my view, completing 700 cases may be an appropriate expectation for some judges and dockets, and might be too high or even too low for others. Courts, dockets, and cases are vastly different from the southern border to the Pacific Northwest to the bigger cities, so I’m not sure about a one-size-fits-all approach.
Asylumist: What about the Migrant Protection Protocols (“MPP”), also known as the Remain in Mexico policy. Can you comment on the effectiveness or efficacy of this program?
Judge Keller: The MPP began right before I left EOIR. In the MPP, as with all dockets, the role of the immigration court is simply to hear and resolve the cases that DHS files, but there were and still are, many legal and procedural concerns about the program. For example, what is the status of a person when they come across the border for their hearing, are they detained or not? Also, there were significant practical considerations. If you bring people across the border and plan to use trailers or tents for hearings, you need lines for IT equipment, air conditioning, water, bathrooms, etc. All that needs to be taken care of well in advance and is a huge undertaking. My impression of the MPP was that it was a political policy decision, which, even if an appropriate DHS exercise, is evidence of how asking the court to prioritize political desires impacts the overall efficiency of the court. The resources it required us to commit in terms of planning, and the resources it took away from the remaining existing caseload will likely contribute to further delay in other cases.
Asylumist: According to press reports, you and two other senior EOIR officials–all three of you women–were forced out in June 2019. What happened? Why did you leave?
Judge Keller: Unless there is something I don’t know about my two colleagues, none of us was forced out. I was not. We could have stayed in our same roles if we had chosen to do so. At the same time, I would not necessarily say that our departures were completely coincidental. I do know that the nature of our jobs had changed considerably.
For me, the previous level of responsibility was no longer there, and I did not have the latitude to lead the OCIJ workforce. My experience and management skills were not being used and I was mostly implementing directives. Any time three experienced, high-level executives depart an agency, there should be cause for concern. The fact that we were all women certainly raises a question, but EOIR has always been pretty progressive in that regard. Nevertheless, appropriate equal respect for women in the workplace is something that unfortunately still needs attention everywhere.
Leaving EOIR was a hard decision for me to make, and I think it was a big loss for EOIR that all three of us chose to exit.
The politicization of the court was also a concern for me. Historically, the Director of EOIR was always a career SES appointee, not a political SES. I viewed that as critically important, symbolically and practically, for a court system, especially one like the immigration court within the Executive Branch. Director James McHenry is in a career Senior Executive position. However, his path to the position was through the new Administration, which had detailed him from his position as a relatively new Administrative Law Judge to Main DOJ as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for a while before he became the Director. It appears that the large majority of his career otherwise was at DHS in non-managerial positions.
Successfully overseeing or managing an organization the size of EOIR with all of its challenges today would be difficult even for a seasoned executive with a lot of management experience.
The question at this time for EOIR is, How does your mission of fair adjudication of immigration cases fit within the broader immigration goals of the government? It takes deft and nuanced management to ensure the integrity of a court of independent decision-makers while maintaining responsiveness to political leaders. A good manager listens to people with expertise and is skilled at motivating others, getting the most from each employee, developing well-thought-out operational plans to reach policy goals, and even changing course if necessary. Under Director McHenry, the advice of the agency’s career executives was often not even solicited, and did not appear to be valued. His approach caused many to question the soundness of his operational decisions, and his commitment to the mission of the court, as opposed to accommodating the prosecutorial goals of DHS. I didn’t think there was as much focus on improving how we heard cases, as there was on meeting numeric goals and adjusting to the priorities of the DHS.
Asylumist: The BIA recently added six new members. All are sitting IJs and all had lower than average asylum approval rates. Do you know how these IJs were selected? What was the process?
Judge Keller: This was stunning. I can’t imagine that the pool of applicants was such that only IJs would be hired, including two from the same city. I think IJs are generally eminently qualified to be Board Members, but to bring in all six from the immigration court? I’d like to think that the pool of applicants was more diverse than that. At both the courts and the BIA, we used to get applicants for judge positions from academia, the private sector, BIA, and other governmental entities. More recently, we also had experienced judges and adjudicators from various other administrative systems, the military, and state and local courts applying to be IJs. I find these recent BIA hires to be very unusual.
I do not know the process for selection, but suspect that Board Chairman David Neal* had minimal input into these hires. I find this scenario very odd.
* Note: Since this interview took place, the Chairman of the BIA, David Neal, left his position and retired from the federal government. Before serving as Chairman of the BIA, David Neal held many other leadership positions at EOIR over many years, including the Vice-Chairman of the BIA and Chief Immigration Judge.
Asylumist: EOIR has made some moves to decertify the IJ union. Do you know why? What do you think about this?
Judge Keller: This happened after I left, but of course, it is easier to run an organization without people questioning you. Good managers recognize that you want opposing viewpoints. Maybe I am biased because I was a union officer, but I was also a manager longer than I was a union leader, and I’ve seen both sides. When I first learned that attorneys and judges were unionized, I was surprised, but I have seen the value of that. As a manager, the union is a great source of information. There are inherent conflicts between management and any union, but the union often has goals similar to those of management. The relationship between a union and management must be carefully developed, managed, and maintained. In the end, I felt it was worth the extra effort.
Now, I think management is more comfortable without public questions. I think decertifying is a mistake, particularly now when there are so many other changes that demand focus.
Asylumist: When he was Attorney General, Jeff Sessions gave a speech to EOIR where he claimed that most asylum cases were fake. This is also a line we frequently hear from the Trump Administration. What was your opinion of that speech?
Judge Keller: I think you may be referring to a press conference the Attorney General held at EOIR in October 2017. In a speech that day, the Attorney General said that the asylum system was “subject to rampant abuse and fraud.” That was disheartening. Fraud is not a factor in the large majority of cases. We know about fraud and we have been dealing with it probably since the inception of the immigration court. But it is not true that overwhelming numbers of asylum seekers are coming to immigration court trying to fraudulently obtain benefits. Whether the majority of their claims ultimately lack merit is a different question. But it is the very fact that we have a robust system to examine and decide asylum claims that makes our country a role model to others. I do not think statements like that made by the Attorney General are helpful to the court’s credibility. If IJs had that speech in mind in court, they would be labeled as biased, and bias is not a good thing for a judge or a court.
For the current Administration, I think there is an underlying skepticism about the extent to which the system is being manipulated. The process is indeed imperfect. But if you think that there are inappropriate “loopholes,” then we need to fix the law or the process. That is why comprehensive, or at least extensive, immigration reform has been discussed for so long. The Attorney General articulated some potential improvements he wanted to make, but also unfortunately focused in that speech on fraud and abuse, as if it was a problem greater than I believe it is.
When I would give my speech to new IJs, I would tell them that they would see the best and the worst of human nature in immigration court. As an IJ, you see persecutors and those who were persecuted; courageous individuals and liars. It is a huge responsibility. Therefore, you can’t go into court as an IJ and be thinking either that everyone is telling the truth, or that everyone is manipulating the process. You have to have an open, yet critical mind. It seems to me that Attorney General Sessions did not have a full appreciation for our particular role. This again brings us back to the idea of an Article I court, or some other solution to solidify the independence of immigration court adjudicators.
Asylumist: What do you think should be done about asylum-decision disparities? Does something need to be done?
Judge Keller: Yes. I think that asylum decision disparities should be evaluated by immigration court managers as they may be a sign of an underlying problem that may need to be addressed. However, I do not believe that they can or should be entirely eliminated.
If a judge is significantly out of line with his or her colleagues in the local court, it might be a red flag. Sometimes, simple things impact grant rates. For example, did the IJ miss some training in a particular area and is that affecting the grant rate? Is the judge assigned or does a court have a docket that by its nature (detained, criminal) will result in a higher or lower grant rate? Court managers should be alert to and manage those issues.
We’ve been looking at this issue for a long time. I remember talking about it with many EOIR leaders and judges over the last 10 years. But each case is different from the next and you don’t want decisions on asylum made according to mathematical formulas as if by computers. Decisions on such important human matters should be made by people who know the legal requirements, and can exercise sound judgment.
One way we thought about addressing seemingly significant disparities was temporarily assigning IJs with high or low grant rates to courts where the grant rates are different. Sometimes, the best way to evaluate your own opinions is to think through them with people who have different views. The hope was that judges would have the time and opportunity to reflect on their approach to asylum.
Once, former Director Osuna and I went to Chicago to visit the judges of the Seventh Circuit, which was at the time highly critical of our judges. We met with several of the Circuit Judges and talked about many things, including disparities in immigration court. We explained our approach to disparities, namely, addressing training needs, addressing any inappropriate conduct via discipline, and improving resources. One of the Circuit Judges mentioned that he was appreciative of our approach, and suspected that if anyone looked at it, there are probably similar disparities at the circuit court level too. As long as human beings are deciding immigration cases, there will always be some disparities. However, significant disparities should be evaluated and action taken only if the disparity is the result of something inappropriate, that is, something other than the proper exercise of independent legal judgment.
Asylumist: What is your hope for the future of EOIR?
Judge Keller: I hope EOIR can hold onto its core focus of hearing and deciding cases fairly and impartially. I also hope that the parties in the process know that we are listening to them. Parties in any court should feel that they’ve received a fair shake and a fair decision. They should understand the reasons why their cases were decided a certain way, and should not have to wait for years to get resolution. That is our reason for being – to deliver that service.
We are living in a time of big lies. President Trump is notorious for his mendacity, and many members of his Administration are no better. These lies come in different shapes and sizes, and relate to topics as diverse as climate change, election meddling, hurricane forecasts, international trade, and Joe Biden. But the biggest and most oft-repeated lies seem to involve immigrants: Asylum seekers are criminals, separating children from parents at the border was Obama’s fault, the asylum system is a scam, non-citizens are voting in our elections, illegal immigrants get free healthcare and welfare benefits, Democrats support open borders, the Diversity Visa Lottery lets foreign governments choose who gets a green card, Muslim refugees were admitted into the U.S. while Christian refugees were refused, immigrants can sponsor all sorts of distant relatives through “chain migration,” Central American countries are safe, etc., etc.
The question I want to ask today is this: If the government itself is lying about asylum seekers, why shouldn’t asylum seekers lie if it helps them win their cases?
The Asyl-Immanuel Kant approve a case where the applicant has Ben Constant-ly lying.
My interest here is not in practicality–it is clearly a bad idea to lie because you might get caught. Our government has a lot of information about asylum seekers and can use that information to test credibility. Asylum Officers, USCIS Officers, DHS attorneys, and Immigration Judges are good at examining witnesses and ferreting out falsehoods. Even if you get away with lying on an asylum application, the lie could come back to haunt you in the future (when you apply for residency or citizenship, or if you want to sponsor a family member). So there are good, practical reasons to tell the truth: You could lose your case, you could be blocked from any immigration benefits for life, you could end up in jail. And if you do get away with it, you can never really rest easy, and for as long as you are here, you will have to live with the possibility that your lie might be exposed and you could lose the life you’ve built in the United States. So in practice, lying is a bad idea. Here, though, I am interested in the morality of lying; not the practicality. Is it morally wrong to lie if that lie helps you to remain in the United States?
At one time, it would have been easy to answer that question in the affirmative. While President Obama’s policies were not always friendly to immigrants–he was called the “Deporter in Chief” by some immigration advocates–his Administration never engaged in the type of systematic dishonesty that we see from President Trump and his team. Despite all the problems during President Obama’s term (and there were many problems), at least it felt as though asylum applicants could generally have their cases adjudicated in an environment that was free from overt political interference. Given that people could get a fair shake, the moral justification for lying was a more difficult case to make.
In those distant days of the Obama Presidency, it was common to hear asylum seekers express great faith in our system of justice. That was one reason they came here in the first place. Their faith in our system made them more likely to tell the truth. Ironically, the constant barrage of lies from President Trump and his Administration is eroding faith in our system, which creates an increased incentive for individuals to falsify their own asylum stories. When the asylum system is discredited and illegitimate, the moral case for telling the truth is weakened.
Of course this outlook assumes a sort-of quid pro quo: If you (Trump) lie about me (asylum seeker), I can lie to you. This is an ends-justify-the-means approach that has never appealed to my sense of justice, and I am frankly uncomfortable with lying from a moral perspective simply because I believe lying is wrong–regardless of the end goal. But this is a type of morality that is easily deconstructed under various modern theories of legal justice. For example, when my law partner asks me, as he often does, “Do these pants make me look fat?” I always say no, even though those pants do make him look fat. I am lying for the sake of maintaining harmony in the office. Ends justifying means. So perhaps I should be less skittish about the moral implications of lying in other realms.
Indeed, support for the morality of lying for the “greater good” can be found in an old philosophical conundrum, presented by Benjamin Constant to Immanuel Kant in 1797. Kant basically believed that lying was always wrong, and so Constant challenged him with a scenario where a murderer is searching for his victim. The murderer arrives at the house of the victim’s friend and asks the friend where the victim is hiding. Does the friend have a duty to speak truthfully to the murderer? Constant argues that he does not–
The concept of duty is inseparable from the concept of right. A duty is that on the part of one being which corresponds to the rights of another. Where there are no rights, there are no duties. To tell the truth is therefore a duty, but only to one who has a right to the truth. But no one has a right to a truth that will harm others.
And so where the government is deliberately harming asylum seekers by lying about them in order to send them away, how can we say that asylum seekers have a duty to tell the truth to that same government?
For me, this is a difficult and uncomfortable question. But despite it all–the unfair laws (which long pre-date this Administration), the torrent of false claims about asylum seekers, the assault on due process–I still think lying is morally wrong in an asylum case. Here’s why: First, for me, the idea of asylum is somehow sacred. Our country is offering protection to strangers who need our help. We ask for nothing in return. In this respect, and despite a realpolitik element, asylum represents our highest ideals. And these are not just American ideals. The idea of welcoming the stranger is mentioned again and again in the Bible. Because I view asylum this way, the idea of lying to win one’s case feels like the violation of a sacred trust or covenant, and I see that as morally wrong.
Also, lying to win asylum further erodes the system and makes it harder for other asylum seekers to receive the protection they need. It is bad enough that the Trump Administration is systematically trying to dismantle our asylum system. When asylum seekers lie, they unwittingly aid in this effort and amplify it, and I believe that this is morally wrong.
Finally, I do not believe that two wrongs make a right. Just because the Administration is debasing itself by lying to harm asylum seekers, I do not think asylum seekers should do the same. I do not think it is moral to lower one’s own standards simply because another person is acting immorally, or even when we are operating in a system that is moving towards moral bankruptcy.
Having said all this, I recognize that I am far less affected by “the system” than the people seeking asylum. I have less to gain and less to lose. Each of us–asylum applicants, attorneys, decision-makers–has to make our own decision based on our own moral imperatives and our own needs. The President and his Administration have made their choice. They are lying to further their agenda. My hope is that asylum seekers and the asylum system can survive their lies while keeping our own morality intact.
There are now more than 1,000,000 people with cases pending before our nation’s Immigration Courts. The culmination of this process is the Individual Hearing, where the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) usually decides whether the applicant gets asylum, some other relief, or is ordered deported from our country. For asylum seekers, the Individual Hearing can be stressful and frightening. Here, we will discuss what to expect at that hearing. In prior posts, I discussed the Master Calendar Hearing, and how to prepare for the Individual Hearing.
Before we get to the substance of what happens at the Individual Hearing, I should mention that there are detained and non-detained hearings. A detained hearing is similar to a non-detained hearing in terms of the order of events, but sometimes the IJ and the alien are in different locations, and so cases are done by video (non-detained cases can also be done by video, but this is less common). These video hearings are more difficult to litigate, in terms of looking at documents, hearing each other talk, reading non-verbal cues, empathizing with the applicant, etc. Detained hearings are more difficult to prepare for, as it is difficult to gather evidence and get ready for your case when you are in jail.
Also, of course, different IJs have different styles (in Immigration Court, IJs decide the case – there are no juries). Some IJs ask a lot of questions; others ask no questions. Some are professional and respectful; others, not so much. It is helpful to know something about your IJ before the court hearing, so you can have an idea about what to expect. Statistics about asylum grant rates for many IJs can be found at TRAC Immigration.
Also, if the Judge makes a joke, don’t forget to laugh. Even if you have no idea what the heck he is talking about.
Finally, as I discussed previously, many cases are won or lost before the trial even begins, and so how well the case is prepared will likely affect how the Individual Hearing proceeds.
As for the Individual Hearing itself, it begins when the IJ arrives in court. Everyone stands up for the Judge. Once everyone sits, the hearing usually begins with a conversation between the IJ and the lawyers (assuming the alien has a lawyer). During this discussion, the parties may try to narrow the issues that need to be discussed. Perhaps there are some areas of agreement, and it is helpful to know this in advance. Also, in some cases, the IJ will not need to hear testimony about the entire case – maybe the alien will only need to testify about part of her story.
At the beginning of the hearing, the IJ will ask what “relief” you are seeking. This can be asylum, Withholding of Removal, relief under the Torture Convention, Cancellation of Removal, Adjustment of Status, Voluntary Departure, and/or something else. The IJ will also mark the evidence and hear any objections. So if you submitted evidence, and the DHS attorney objects to that evidence, the Judge must decide whether or not to admit that evidence into the record, and how much “weight” to give to that piece of evidence (some evidence is considered more reliable than other evidence and hence receives more “weight” in terms of how much it influences the IJ’s decision). At this time, the IJ will also ask whether there are any changes to the form I-589. You can update your form and make any corrections. Once the form is updated, the IJ will have you sign the form under penalty of perjury. You will also be “sworn in” under the penalty of perjury. This is basically a promise to tell the truth, and if it is found that you are not telling the truth, there are potential immigration and criminal consequences. If there is an interpreter in your case, the interpreter will also be sworn in.
If you have brought any witnesses to court, they will typically be asked to wait outside, so they cannot hear your testimony. That way, their testimony can be compared to your testimony. If there are inconsistencies between your witness and you, it could cause the IJ to think you are not telling the truth. For this reason, it is important that the witnesses are prepared in advance, and that you and your witnesses are on the same page. Keep in mind that different people may have different memories of the same event, and even if they are both telling the truth, there is still a risk that the two accounts will not be consistent. For this reason, it is important to go over each person’s testimony prior to the court hearing.
Normally, the “respondent” (the alien who is the subject of the court proceeding) testifies first. This usually begins with your attorney asking questions (assuming again that you have an attorney). This is called the “direct examination,” and usually involves you telling your whole story. Once the testimony is done, the DHS attorney asks questions. This is called “cross examination.” During cross exam, the DHS attorney will often try to test your credibility. There are different ways to do this: Asking about prior inconsistencies in other applications (including any visa applications), at the Asylum Office, or during the credible fear interview; asking about testimony that seems implausible or inconsistent with country conditions; asking about documents or evidence that seems fraudulent. Hopefully, as you prepare your case, you will think about some possible avenues for cross examination and how you might respond. Afterwards, your attorney has an opportunity to ask some additional questions, based on what happened during cross examination. This is called “re-direct.” The IJ can interject with questions at any time.
During your testimony (and for your witnesses’ testimony), remember that if you do not understand a question, ask for clarification. Do not answer a question that you do not understand. If you do not know the answer to a question, or you do not remember the answer, just say that you don’t know or you don’t remember; don’t guess. If you need a moment to collect your thoughts, ask for that. If you need a break, ask for that too. If you have an interpreter and there is a problem with the interpretation, don’t be afraid to raise that issue as well (especially if you do not have a lawyer or your lawyer does not understand the language). Also, on cross exam, the DHS attorney often asks yes-or-no questions, and will sometimes insist on a yes-or-no answer (sometimes, the IJ will do this as well). If you cannot answer the question using a yes or no, try to explain that. If you feel that you have no choice but to answer yes or no, you should at least alert the IJ that you have more to say. On re-direct, you will have an opportunity to elaborate on your answer. Remember to always be polite and don’t lose your cool.
After your testimony is finished, it will be your witnesses’ turn. Sometimes, the IJ will accept a “proffer” of a witness’s testimony (assuming both your lawyer and DHS agree). This means that the IJ will accept the testimony as recounted in the witness’s letter (witnesses generally submit a statement in advance of trial), and that the witness will not actually need to testify. A proffer can be beneficial to your case (since it eliminates the possibility of inconsistent testimony), but it can also be a disadvantage (since the IJ will not hear the witness’s testimony, which would presumably support your asylum claim).
After all the testimony is done, most–but not all–IJs allow the lawyers to make closing arguments. This is an opportunity for the lawyers to explain why they think you should win (or, for the DHS lawyer, lose) your case. Some IJs prefer to have a discussion at the end of testimony, to see whether there is agreement about resolution of the case.
Finally, the IJ will either make an oral decision, reserve decision for later, or inform the parties about the next step (in some cases, the IJ needs more information from the parties before she can make a decision). In the majority of of cases, the IJ issues an oral decision that same day.
If you do not like the IJ’s decision, you can “reserve” appeal. If the DHS attorney does not like the IJ’s decision, DHS can reserve appeal. If you (or DHS) reserve appeal, you have 30 days to file the appeal using form EOIR-26. The IJ should give you the deadline for the appeal. If you or DHS appeal, the appeal will be resolved by the Board of Immigration Appeals. But that is a story for another day.
The key to winning an asylum case in Immigration Court is preparation. I’d venture that the majority of asylum cases are won or lost before the applicant arrives in court for the final hearing. If the case and the applicant are well prepared, the chances for success are greatly improved. If the case and the applicant are not well prepared, the likelihood of winning is much reduced. So how do you prepare for an asylum hearing in Immigration Court?
First, you have to determine whether you are eligible for any relief. If you fear return to your country on account of your race, religion, nationality, political opinion or particular social group, you may be eligible for asylum or Withholding of Removal. If you fear torture, you could be eligible for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Besides these types of humanitarian protection, there are a number of other applications that might help you avoid deportation: Cancellation of Removal, adjustment of status based on a family relationship or a job, a T or U visa for certain victims of crimes, the semi-mythical S visa for certain cooperating witnesses, the Special Immigrant Juvenile visa, to name the most common. How do you know what relief you might be eligible for? Your best bet is to talk to a lawyer, but you can also do your own research.
Pear
Assuming you qualify for relief, you normally have to inform the Immigration Judge and submit all necessary forms at the Master Calendar Hearing (“MCH”). In many cases, if you do not submit all applications for relief in advance of the Individual Hearing, you forfeit those opportunities for relief. Be aware that some applications for relief require a fee (asylum does not require a fee), and so make sure to pay the fee well in advance of the Individual Hearing.
As the Individual Hearing approaches, you need to file all the necessary documents with the Immigration Court. This includes all evidence, a witness list, and a legal brief. The documents must be filed on time. The default rule (from the Immigration Court Practice Manual) is that evidence should be filed at least 15 days prior to the Individual Hearing, but some Judges have their own rules and require documents earlier than that (the Judge should inform you about this at the MCH). One copy of the evidence goes to the Court and one copy goes to the local Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (the prosecutor).
The evidence normally consists of the I-589 asylum form (and/or forms for any other applications for relief), an affidavit, and supporting documents. Any documents not in English must be properly translated. You can read more about what evidence is helpful here.
Courts also require a witness list, which is a list of people who will come to Court to provide testimony in your case. Anyone who plans to appear as a witness must provide a letter indicating what they know about your situation. There are benefits and risks to any witness, and you need to think carefully about whether a particular witness will be helpful for your case (and of course, if you have a lawyer, the lawyer should explore this with you). All witnesses need to be prepared for their testimony, just as the applicant herself needs to be prepared (see below).
Also, for most cases, it is a good idea to submit a brief detailing the legal theory of the case. This is especially important where the case involves a particular social group or PSG (the BIA requires applicants to specifically articulate any PSG). Even in cases where PSG is not an issue, it is important to explain the legal posture of the case and any issues that may be relevant (one year filing bar, nexus, persecutor bar, firm resettlement, criminal issues, etc.).
In addition, if your case was referred to Court by the Asylum Office, you should think about why. Are there inconsistencies or errors that need to be addressed? Maybe this requires a new affidavit or additional evidence. Did you fail to show that you suffered past persecution or that you have a well-founded fear of future persecution? Maybe you need more evidence or a stronger legal argument. While the Immigration Judge reviews the case de novo (meaning, the IJ makes her own decision), remember that the Asylum Officer’s notes can be admitted to impeach your credibility. As you prepare for Court, you should think about what was said and submitted at the Asylum Interview, and determine whether that requires any additional evidence or testimony.
Pre-Pear
Before the Individual Hearing, make sure you and any of your dependents have completed their biometrics (fingerprints) appointment. If your case has been referred from the Asylum Office, this will already have been done (assuming you showed up for your biometrics appointment prior to your asylum interview). If not, you can request a biometrics appointment. This is important, and if you forget to do it (which is easy), it could result in the case being delayed or denied.
As the Court date approaches, it is important to practice for the hearing. How do you want to present your case? What questions might be asked of you? What are the weak points in the case and how will you discuss those? It is very important to think about these issues in advance. Judges and Trial Attorneys are good at finding the weaknesses in a case and asking about them, and failure to prepare ahead of time may result in the case being denied. In our office, we do two practice sessions with the client – the first about a week before the trial and the second a day or two before (this practice session is an much for the attorney’s benefit as the client’s).
Finally, prior to the hearing, it is a good idea to talk to the DHS Attorney (normally, your lawyer does this). It is not always easy to reach these attorneys, and they often do not return calls. However, at the beginning of the hearing, it is common for the Judge to ask whether the parties have talked, and so it is helpful to at least have tried to communicate with the government lawyer. Assuming you can talk to the lawyer in advance, you can potentially narrow the issues and have a better sense of what to expect at the hearing.
So that’s about it for preparation. In a future post, I will discuss what happens at the Individual Hearing.
Moving to another country can be challenging and confusing. Navigating that new country’s legal system can be downright maddening. As an asylum attorney, I’ve observed my clients’ behavior in Immigration Court, the Asylum Office, and during USCIS interviews, and I’ve accumulated a list of do’s and don’ts (mostly don’ts) for interacting with immigration officials. So, in no particular order, here’s what to do and not do, when you appear for your hearing or interview–
Do turn off your cell phone (don’t put it on “silent” or “vibrate” – turn it off)
Do dress respectfully
Do not wear a hat (unless it is religious garb, like a hijab or kippah)
Do not engage in fake emotional outbursts, like crying or screaming uncontrollably – it is not culturally appropriate in American, and it will potentially make the decision-maker uncomfortable, embarrassed or angry (you can express your emotions – just don’t be fake)
Don’t wear perfume or cologne
Do do these do’s or you’ll be due for deep doo doo (times deux).
Don’t answer a question when you do not know the answer – Don’t guess!
Do take a bath beforehand
Don’t tell the decision-maker that she is good-looking, smart, professional, well-dressed, brilliant, funny, Christ-like or anything else that resembles kissing her ass – this will probably only aggravate and/or creep out the person you are trying to flatter
Do tell the truth
Don’t cry and beg for a good decision
Do turn off your cell phone (I mean it!)
Do use the bathroom before your interview or hearing, so you do not have to interrupt proceedings to run to the potty
Do not lose your temper with or be disrespectful to the Immigration Judge, DHS attorney, Asylum Officer, interpreter, clerk, security guard or anyone else involved in the process
Do not chew gum (or tobacco, toothpicks or anything else)
Don’t bring small children to the court or the interview unless they are required to be present
Do bring all your original documents with you (all passports, birth certificates, marriage certificates, divorce documents, school and work records, military records, medical documents, death certificates, police reports, ID cards, photos, witnesses letters, etc. – in short, if you submitted a copy of it, bring the original if you have it)
Do show up on time (or better yet, show up early)
Don’t answer questions that you do not understand (just say, “Sorry, I do not understand the question”)
Don’t take advice from friends or family members if they do not know what they are talking about
Do be friendly and make eye contact
Don’t avoid responsibility for bad things you did, such as criminal conduct or prior misrepresentations – if you take responsibility, express remorse, apologize, explain how you have changed, and show that you will not repeat the bad behavior, you are most likely to overcome the problem (of course, if you have a criminal or misrepresentation issue, you should talk to a lawyer for guidance)
Do get a good night sleep beforehand (even though this can be difficult)
Do listen carefully and respond to the question that is asked; not to the question that you wanted them to ask
Do not try to avoid the questions or change the subject
Don’t interrupt other people, especially Judges, Trial Attorneys, and Asylum Officers
Don’t get flustered – if you are losing your cool, take a breath, or ask for a moment to compose yourself
Don’t leave your cell phone on – shut it off! (did I already mention this?)
Do stand up when the Judge enters the courtroom
Do not repeat the entire oath after the Judge or Asylum Officer asks whether you swear or affirm to tell the truth – just say, “I do” or “yes”
Do speak slowly and clearly, and, if you are using an interpreter, break up long answers into shorter bits so the interpreter can accurately translate everything you say
Do not bring weapons or other prohibited items to the courtroom or Asylum Office
Do not roll your eyes or use other disrespectful body language
Do answer questions verbally – you cannot nod your head for “yes” or “no”
Do sit up straight
Do not plead “Not guilty!” at the Master Calendar Hearing
Do think before you speak – Why are you being asked this question? What might the questioner have in mind?
Don’t answer a question in court if your attorney objects to that question – let the Judge make a decision on the objection. Depending on how the Judge rules, you may not be required to answer the question
Do not forget where you are and get too comfortable/familiar – remember, you are being judged (literally)
Do not use curse words or rude language, unless it is part of the story you are telling
Do not refer to the Immigration Judge as “Your Lordship,” “Your Majesty,” “Your Highness,” “Oh Great One,” “Your Holiness,” “He Who Must Not Be Named,” or any other unusual sobriquet – in the U.S., we say “Your Honor”
Do not refer to the Asylum Officer by any weird sobriquets either – you can call the officer “Officer” or “Sir” or “Ma’am”
Do review your case before any hearing, and think in advance about how to respond to difficult questions
And most important of all, Do pay your lawyer (especially if you are my client!)
So that’s about it. This list is not comprehensive, of course, and so if you have any suggestions, please let us know. And in case I forgot to mention it: Turn off your cell phone!
Immigration Judge Denise Slavin recently retired after 24 years on the bench. The Asylumist caught up with her to ask about her career, her role as a leader in the National Association of Immigration Judges, and the state of affairs at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”).
Asylumist: Tell me about how you got to be an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). What did you like and dislike about the job?
Judge Slavin: Before I became a Judge, I had some very different turns in my career. Early on, I worked for the Maryland Commission for Human Relations, where I prosecuted state civil rights complaints. I admired the hearing examiners, and I felt that I wanted to do that type of work. I knew [Immigration Judge] Larry Burman when I was in college, and he suggested I apply to the INS to become a trial attorney. I worked as a trial attorney from 1987 to 1990.
I then worked for the Department of Justice, Office of Special Investigations. This was maybe my favorite job. We investigated Nazi war criminals, and I worked on many interesting cases, including the case of John Demjanjuk. During my five years at the Office of Special Investigations, Judge Creppy became the Chief Immigration Judge. Since I knew him from my work in employer sanctions at INS, I called to congratulate him, and he suggested that I apply for an Immigration Judge position. I applied and got the job.
Judge Denise Slavin
I started work as an IJ in 1995. My first assignment was in Miami doing non-detained cases. I loved it there–the city was exotic and multicultural. It almost felt like I wasn’t living in the United States. It was also a good court for me to start my career on the bench. I hadn’t practiced in Miami as a Trial Attorney, so there were no expectations of me. Also, it is a large court with many judges to learn from.
I did non-detained cases for 10 years in Miami, but the work started to become a bit tedious. An opportunity came up and I transferred to the detained docket at Krome Detention Center. I loved working on those cases. The legal issues were cutting edge. I remember one three-month period, where our cases resulted in three published BIA decisions. For detained cases, the law develops quickly, and it was very challenging to keep up to speed.
I would have been happy to remain in Miami, but family issues brought me to Baltimore. The DHS and private-bar attorneys in Baltimore are very professional, and my colleagues were excellent mentors. All this helped make my time there very enjoyable.
Asylumist: What could DHS attorneys and the private bar do better in terms of presenting their cases? Are there any common problems that you observed as an IJ?
Judge Slavin: There are a lot of good DHS attorneys in Baltimore. DHS attorneys get a lot of credit with judges if they narrow the issues and stipulate to portions of the case. For example, it is so tedious when DHS inquires about every step the alien takes from her country to the United States. If there is no issue with the journey to the U.S., it is not worth going into all this, and it uses up precious court time. When DHS attorneys ask such questions, it would sometimes be frustrating for me as a Judge, since I do not know what they have in their file and what they might be getting at. But if there is nothing there, it is very frustrating to sit through. DHS attorneys should only explore such avenues of questioning if they think there is an issue there. When they focus on real issues, and don’t waste time sidetracking, they gain credibility with the IJs.
As for the private bar, I appreciate pre-hearing briefs on particular social groups. Also, explaining whether the applicant is claiming past persecution and the basis for that, whether there is a time bar, and nexus. Of course, this can sometimes be straightforward, but other times, it is a bigger issue and a brief is more important.
I encourage both parties to work together to reach agreement on issues whenever possible. Court time is so valuable, Judges want to spend it on the disputed issues.
Asylumist: What about lawyers who are bad actors, and who violate the rules?
Judge Slavin: IJs are prohibited from reporting attorneys directly to bar associations. Instead, we report the offending lawyer to internal EOIR bar counsel, who then makes a decision about whether or not to go to the state bar. Personally, I have been hesitant to report private attorneys because I think the system is unfair–it allows you to report a private attorney, but not a DHS attorney. Although this is unfair (and it is another reason why Immigration Courts should be Article I courts), there were times when I had to report blatant cases of attorney misconduct.
Asylumist: Looking at your TRAC statistics, your denial rates are much higher for detained cases. Some of this probably relates to criminal convictions and the one-year asylum bar, but can you talk about the difference in grant rates for detained vs. non-detained cases? Do IJs view detained cases differently? Perhaps in terms of the REAL ID Act’s evidentiary requirements (since it is more difficult to get evidence if you are detained)?
Judge Slavin: There were two detention centers in the Miami area—Krome and Broward Transitional Center–and they produced two different types of cases. At Krome, detainees mostly had convictions and had been in the U.S. for years. It is very difficult to win asylum if you have been here for that long. It’s hard to show that anyone would remember you, let alone persecute you, if you return to your country after a decade or more. BTC held newly arriving individuals who were claiming asylum. They generally had more viable claims.
As a Judge, I did account for people being detained. I didn’t want to deprive someone of the right to get a piece of evidence, but I didn’t want to keep the person detained for an extra three months at government expense to get the document. If there is no overriding reason to require corroboration, I would not require it for detained applicants. In many cases, corroboration that you would normally expect, you cannot get in the 30-day time-frame of a detained case. I have continued cases were there was needed corroboration, but I generally tried to avoid that.
Also, in adjudicating detained cases, it is important to consider the spirit of the asylum law, which is generous. But for people with convictions, we have to balance the need to protect an individual from persecution against the competing interest to protect the United States from someone who has committed crimes here. In a non-detained asylum case, the potential asylee should be given the benefit of the doubt, but–for example–in a detained case where the applicant has multiple criminal convictions, the person may not receive such a benefit of the doubt, and a Judge would rather err, if at all, on the side of caution and protect the community.
Asylumist: Again, looking at the TRAC statistics, your grant rates tend to be higher than other IJs in your local court. What do you think accounts for that? How do different IJs evaluate cases so differently?
Judge Slavin: In asylum cases, we don’t have a computer to input information and come up with an answer. The immigration bench does and should reflect the diverse political backgrounds of people in our country. I am more on the liberal side, but I will defend colleagues who are more conservative. We don’t want only middle-of-the road judges; we want the immigration bench to reflect our society.
As far as the TRAC numbers, it’s true that people who are represented by attorneys are generally more successful in court. However, if you have a bad case, most decent lawyers won’t take it. Such cases would be denied even with a lawyer. Since people with weak cases have a harder time finding lawyers, the disparity between represented and unrepresented individuals is not as dramatic as the TRAC statistics suggest.
Asylumist: One idea for reducing disparities between IJs is to hold training sessions where “easy” and “hard” judges evaluate a case and discuss how they reach different conclusions. Do you think this is something that would be helpful? What type of training do IJs need?
Judge Slavin: We have not had this type of training, but it would be interesting. EOIR has not been consistent about training. In-person trainings come and go. They do hold video training sessions, but these are horrible. Judges would get some time off the bench to watch the videos, but due to the pressing backlog, we would usually do other work while we were watching.
Also, looking at talking heads is not a good way to learn new information. In addition, the social opportunities to talk to other Judges with different backgrounds and different judicial philosophies that occur only during in-person trainings are invaluable.
The National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) has tried to get EOIR to hold different types of trainings, such as regional conferences–where, for example, all the IJs in the Eleventh Circuit would get together–but unfortunately, EOIR has not gone for that approach.
In my experience, the more interactive trainings are more helpful. I’ve learned the most from talking with other IJs and from in-person trainings. This was one of the advantages of serving on a big court like Miami–the opportunity to interact with many other judges and see how they handled their dockets.
Another idea is to give IJs “sabbatical time” off the bench, to observe the cases of other judges. Seeing and talking to other judges about how they handle different issues is very helpful.
Asylumist: You mentioned the NAIJ, the National Association of Immigration Judges, which is basically a union for Immigration Judges. How did you get involved with the NAIJ? What did you do as a member and leader of that organization?
Judge Slavin: I had two mentors–Judge Bruce Solow and Judge John Gossart–who were both past presidents of NAIJ. They encouraged me to get involved with the organization. I ran for Vice President with Judge Dana Leigh Marks, who ran for President. I call Judge Marks my sister from another mother. I love her to death. Prior to becoming VP, I had done some secretarial-type duties for the NAIJ, like taking the minutes. I originally joined NAIJ to help improve the Immigration Court system.
As they say, bad management makes for good unions. When management is good, the number of NAIJ members falls, and when management is bad, more judges join. The situation these days is not good. In particular, the politicization of the Immigration Courts has been outrageous. This has been going on in several administrations, but has reached a peak in the current Administration.
Another issue is that we have judges doing more and more with less and less. It’s crazy. When I was in Miami and we had a thousand cases per judge, we were hysterical. When I left the court in Baltimore, I had 5,000 cases! Despite this, management at EOIR thinks that judges are not producing. The idea of this is absurd. Management simply does not recognize what we are doing, and this is bad for morale.
The previous Director of EOIR, Juan Osuna, appreciated the court and the judges, even if there were some political issues. When you have someone who does not appreciate what you are doing, and who gives you production quotas, it creates a very difficult environment.
These days, I do worry, especially for the newer judges. If you have to focus on getting cases done quickly, it will cause other problems–some cases that might have been granted will be denied if the applicant does not have time to gather evidence. Also, while many decisions can be made from the bench, for others, the Judge needs time to think things through. For me, I had to sleep on some of my cases–they were close calls. I needed time to decide how best to be true to the facts and the law. I also had to think about how my decision might affect future cases—most IJs want to be consistent, at least with their own prior decisions. To make proper decisions often takes time, and if judges do not have time to make good decisions, there will be appeals and reversals. For these reasons, production quotas will be counter-productive in the long run.
Other problems with the court system include the aimless docket reshuffling, which started with the Obama administration. IJs should determine on their own how cases are set on their dockets. Cases should be set when they are ready to go forward, not based on the priorities of DHS.
The main issue here is that DHS [the prosecutor] is very much controlling EOIR [the court]. The ex-parte communication that occurs on the macro level is unheard of–the priorities of DHS are communicated through backdoor channels to EOIR, and then EOIR changes its priorities. Have you ever heard of a state prosecutor’s office telling a state court which cases to set first? This re-shuffling affects IJs’ dockets–we would receive lists of case numbers that we had to move to the front of the queue. We had no control over which cases had to be moved. Instead, cases were advance based on DHS priorities.
Maybe one silver lining of the politicization under the current Administration is that it has helped people realize the need for an Article I court.
Asylumist: Bad management makes for good unions. What is your opinion of the leadership at EOIR today? What more could they do to support judges?
Judge Slavin: It’s hard to think about EOIR in this political environment. Former Director Juan Osuna was wonderful. He spent a lot of time minimizing damage to the court by the Department of Justice and Congress; for example, by explaining how judicial independence and due process prevented placing artificial constraints on the number or length of continuances granted. These concepts seem to elude the current leadership of EOIR, and the administration has moved to strip us of the tools we need (such as administrative closure) to control our dockets.
The court has many needs that are not being addressed. We need more and better training. We need larger courtrooms–it drives me crazy that we cannot get courtrooms the size we need; with children, families, and lawyers–we need more space.
Also, we need more judges. I retired, and a lot of people coming up behind me are getting ready to retire. It is hard to keep up with the numbers. One idea is to implement phased retirement for IJs, so judges could work two or three days per week. This was approved four years ago, but not implemented. I do not know why.
Judge Marks [former President of the NAIJ] and I talked to EOIR about hiring retired IJs back on a part-time basis. We asked about this 10 years ago, and they are finally getting around to it. That will help, and hopefully, EOIR can step up that program.
Recent changes that affected judges directly, such as limiting administrative closure, are not good for case management.
The NAIJ leadership and I have talked to EOIR Director James McHenry about some of this. He is not getting it. He is very young, and he thinks he has a new approach, but he does not know the history or background of EOIR, and he does not seem to grasp what the agency needs to do. He also does not understand how overworked judges have been for such a long time, and seems to think the problems with the court are based on lack of commitment and work ethic of the judges. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Asylumist: How would it help if Immigration Courts became Article I courts?
Judge Slavin: Article I courts would still be part of the Executive Branch. Immigration is a plenary power, but when it comes to case-by-case adjudication, that issue disappears. The bottom line is that people are entitled to due process, and that requires judicial independence. I don’t think you can have due process without judicial independence. This is one of the hallmarks of the America legal system. Even arriving aliens are entitled to due process. If we change that, we are starting to give up who we are. If we are trying to save the U.S. from terrorists by eliminating due process for all, what are we saving? It is taking away an important tenant of our democratic system.
There is a plan to transition the Immigration Courts to Article I courts. The Bankruptcy Court did it. The plan allows for grandfathering of sitting IJs for a limited period. The sooner this is done, the easier it will be. And in fact, it must be done.
If we had Article I courts, we would eliminate aimless docket reshuffling and political priorities. Judges would control their own dockets, and this would lead to better morale and better efficiency.
Earlier this month, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”)–the office that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts–issued a Myths vs. Facts sheet, to explain that migrants are bad people and that most of them lose their asylum cases anyway.
I am always suspicious of “myths vs. facts” pronouncements, and to me, this one from EOIR seems particularly propaganda-esque (apparently the Washington Post Fact Checker thinks so too, as they gave the document two Pinocchios, meaning “significant omissions and/or exaggerations”). In terms of why EOIR created this document, one commentator has theorized that the current agency leadership is tired of answering the same questions and justifying its actions, and so they created a consolidated document that could be used whenever questions from the public or Congress come up.
EOIR has released a new “Myths vs. Facts” brochure.
This is a plausible enough explanation, but I wanted to know more. Lucky, I have a super-secret source inside EOIR itself. I met up with my source in a deserted parking garage, where he/she/it/they (I am not at liberty to say which) handed me a sealed envelope containing an additional sheet of myths and facts. These myths and facts didn’t make it into EOIR’s final draft. But now, for the first time, in an Asylumist exclusive, you can read the myths and facts that EOIR did not want you to see. Here we go:
Myth: Aliens who appear by video teleconferencing (“VTC”) equipment get just as much due process as anyone else. Maybe more. Fact: The video camera makes aliens who appear by VTC look 20% darker than their actual skin tone (the skill level of EOIR’s make-up crew leaves something to be desired). Since dark people are viewed as less credible and more dangerous, this increases the odds of a deportation order. Another benefit of VTC is that Immigration Judges (“IJ”) can turn down the volume every time an applicant starts to cry or says something the IJ doesn’t want to hear. This also makes it easier to deny relief. Fun fact: Newer model VTC machines come with a laugh track, which makes listening to boring sob stories a lot more pleasurable.
Myth: Immigration Judges don’t mind production quotas. In fact, most IJs keep wall charts, where they post a little gold star every time they complete a case. At the end of the month, the IJ with the most stars gets an ice cream. Fact: While some IJs relish being treated as pieceworkers in a nineteenth century garment factory, others do not. Frankly, they shouldn’t complain. EOIR recently commissioned a study, which found that a trained monkey could stamp “denied” on an asylum application just as well as a judge, and monkeys work 30% faster. Even for human judges, EOIR has determined that it really shouldn’t take more than 10 minutes to glance at an asylum case and write up a deportation order. At that rate, an IJ can deny six cases an hour, 48 cases per day, and 12,480 cases per year. Given these numbers, even IJs who insist on some modicum of due process should easily complete 700 cases per year (as required by the new production quota). And they better. Otherwise, it’s good bye homo sapien, hello pan troglodyte.
Myth: Aliens who participate in Legal Orientation Programs (“LOP”) spend an average of 30 additional days in detention, have longer case lengths, and add over $100 million in detention costs to DHS. Fact: Knowing your rights is dangerous. It might cause you to exercise them. And people who exercise their rights are harder to deport. EOIR is working on a new LOP, which will teach aliens how to properly respond to a Notice to Appear (“Guilty, your honor!”), how to seek asylum (“I feel totally safe in my country!”), how to seek relief (“I don’t need any relief – please send me home post haste!”), and how to appeal (“Your Honor, I waive my appeal!”). EOIR estimates that aliens who follow this new ROP will help reduce detention time and save DHS millions. The new ROP will help Immigration Judges as well. It’s a lot easier to adjudicate an asylum case where the alien indicates that she is not afraid to return home. And faster adjudications means IJs can more easily meet their production quotas – so it’s a win-win!
Myth: EOIR Director James McHenry got his job based on merit. He has significant prior management experience, and he is well-qualified to lead an agency with almost 3,000 employees and a half-billion dollar budget. Fact: James McHenry’s main supervisory experience prior to becoming EOIR Director comes from an 11th-grade gig stage-managing “The Tempest,” by William Shakespeare. In a prescient review, his school paper called the show “a triumph of the Will.” More recently, Mr. McHenry served as an attorney for DHS/ICE in Atlanta, and for a few months, as an Administrative Law Judge for the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer. In those positions, he gained valuable management experience by supervising a shared secretary and a couple of interns. When asked for a comment about her boss’s management skills, Mr. McHenry’s former intern smiled politely, and slowly backed out of the room.
Myth: In the EOIR Myths vs. Facts, the myths are myths and the facts are facts. That’s because the Trump Administration is always honest and credible when it comes to immigration. Fact: [Sounds of screeching metal and explosions]. Uh oh, I think we just broke the myths and facts machine…
So perhaps all is not as it seems. Sometimes, myths and facts get mixed up, especially in the Trump Administration, which has redacted human rights reports to show that countries are safe, buried other reports that don’t say what they like, and claimed that asylum lawyers are making up cases to get their clients across the border. It’s all in the grand tradition of the merchants of doubt, men and women who know better, but who obfuscate the truth–about tobacco, global warming, vaccines, whatever–to achieve a political goal (or make a buck). Why shouldn’t EOIR join in the fun? But to return to our friend William Shakespeare, I have little doubt that, eventually, the truth will out. The question is, how much damage will we do to migrants and to ourselves in the meantime?
The vast majority of Immigration Judges, DHS attorneys, Asylum Officers, and USCIS officers are professional and respectful. But what if they are not? What do you do then?
First off, I think it is important to understand that the bad officials are a small minority. I’ve been to many interviews and court hearings, and I’ve only ever made one complaint (against a USCIS officer at a Green Card interview). In other words, at least in my experience, government officials in immigration-world are generally pretty good.
Now admittedly, I am a lawyer and I know my clients’ rights and what to expect from “the system.” Pro se (unrepresented) applicants may not receive the same level of respect. They are easier to abuse, and it is more likely that decision-makers will cut corners in cases where the applicant is unable to protect herself.
That said, I am also involved in the BIA Pro Bono Project, where I review a dozen or so unrepresented appeals cases each month. I see the transcript of the Immigration Court case, and I can read how the Immigration Judge and the DHS attorney treated the applicant. While it is fairly common to see Judges and DHS attorneys moving quickly through a pro se hearing, it is also common to see these same officials taking extra time to ensure they are properly adjudicating the case. Once in a while, I see a case where the Judge steamrolled the proceedings to reach a quick decision, but that is the exception. In most cases, even those that were adjudicated quickly, the outcome seems fair, given the available evidence and testimony (one big caveat – many of these pro se cases are not well developed and are lacking in evidence. This is because the cases we review are for individuals who are detained. If these people had access to a lawyer and could better prepare their cases, many—even most—would achieve a better outcome).
The government takes your complaints very seriously.
While outright hostility and rule breaking seem quite rare, adjudicators can sometimes be testy, intimidating or unfriendly. What to do if you have the bad luck of encountering a hostile or impolite decision-maker?
The first thing to do is to remain calm. The demeanor of the decision-maker is often unrelated to the outcome of the case, and we have seen examples where an unfriendly officer issues a positive decision. Remember too that this person is not someone you will likely ever encounter again in your life. All you want from him is a favorable decision. Even if your experience at the interview is unpleasant or frightening, that won’t matter much if the case is granted. If you can keep your cool, answer all the questions, remain polite, and not lose your composure, you increase the likelihood of a good result. Getting angry, or arguing with the decision-maker is unlikely to get you the decision you want.
Second, make your record. This means, if you have something that you think is important to say, you should try to say it. In other words, don’t let an aggressive officer or judge intimidate you into silence. Court hearings and some USCIS interviews are recorded. Asylum Officers are supposed to write down everything you say (and if they do not write down what you say, you can complain to a supervisor). Even if you are ultimately prevented from saying something, if you indicate that you had something else to say, that exchange might be reviewed on appeal (or by a supervisor) and could result in a new trial or interview.
In making your record, you can be explicit. You can say to the judge or officer, “I think you are treating me unfairly because you are not allowing me to talk about X.” Say this politely and calmly, and it might soften the decision-maker’s stance. Say it aggressively, and you will likely harden the decision-maker’s position. I remember one case where the DHS attorney seemed (to me at least) to be taking a very aggressive position towards my asylum-seeker client. Finally, I simply asked (politely) why DHS was so opposed to asylum in the case. The attorney explained his motivation, which helped me better understand the case, and ultimately, the client received asylum.
Third, especially if you are unrepresented, you should write down what happened after the interview or court hearing. When things go wrong, it is important to try to understand what happened, and the more information you have, the better. If you write down what happened immediately, the information is more likely to be accurate. This will be useful if you later want someone else, like a lawyer, to review the case. It is also important if you need to make a formal complaint against the decision-maker.
Finally, if you feel you were subject to unfair treatment, you can make a complaint. Different forums have different procedures for complaining. For example, if you are with an Asylum Officer, you can ask to speak with a supervisor. You do this during the interview itself by telling the Asylum Officer that you would like to speak to a supervisor. For an Immigration Court case, you would typically contact the judge’s supervisor (called the Assistant Chief Immigration Judge) after the court hearing, or–more typically–you would just file an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Periodically, I receive decisions that I think are wrong or unfair, but my clients have never been subject to treatment by an Asylum Officer or Judge that warranted a complaint. I did make a complaint once about a USCIS officer. I spoke to the officer’s supervisor immediately after the interview, and then sent a written complaint directly to the supervisor. I do not know whether the officer herself was informed of the complaint (I never saw her again), but I do know that my client’s case was approved in short order.
Most Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers are professional and respectful, and so hopefully, you will never encounter an official who is treating you unfairly. But if you do, keep calm, remain respectful, and politely make the points you need to make. This is the best way to maximize your chances for a positive decision.
As you may have heard, parts of the federal government are closed for business. After two years of Republican inaction on “the wall,” somehow President Trump has decided that now is the time to shut the government down in an effort to “permanently fix the problem on the Southern Border.” Let’s look at the effect of the shutdown on immigration generally, and on asylum more particularly.
In immigration world, the biggest–and most ironic–effect of the shutdown has been to close most of the nation’s Immigration Courts. Courts that handle detained cases are still operating normally, but non-detained courts are closed. The irony is that shuttering the courts will have the effect of delaying the deportation of many aliens. On average (and based on current projections for FY2019), Immigration Judges will deport about 676 people per day. If we remove detained cases from the mix (very roughly speaking, detained cases make up about 13% of all Immigration Court cases), we can estimate that for each day the government is shut down, 588 people are spared from deportation. Given the long backlog in Immigration Court, most people with postponed cases will probably not return to court for another year or two, and so such people will be able to remain the U.S. far longer thanks to the shutdown.
$5,700,000,000 wall vs. $79 ladder.
Also from the Irony Department: The lapse in government funding means that Border Patrol agents–the very people who are supposed to guard our Southern border–will not be paid until the shutdown ends. As you can imagine, this is not great for morale. In addition, the E-Verify System, which allows employers to check whether a particular person is authorized to work, is down. If this “electronic wall” is not working, some “illegals” may be able to work. These results seems contrary to Mr. Trump’s stated goals of deporting more people and fixing the broken immigration system, but what else is new?
Of course, many asylum seekers will not be very happy about having their court cases delayed. Some have been waiting years for a decision, all the while separated from family members and living with great uncertainty. For such people and their families, the delay is heartbreaking.
To check on the status of the Immigration Courts, you can visit the EOIR website, which will indicate whether operations have resumed. If your court case is postponed due to the shutdown, the case will be rescheduled once the lapse in funding has been resolved. From EOIR:
Non-detained docket cases will be reset for a later date after funding resumes. Immigration courts will issue an updated notice of hearing to respondents or, if applicable, respondents’ representatives of record for each reset hearing.
In other words, the Immigration Court will send you or your lawyer a written notice for the new hearing date. You can also check the Immigration Court hotline, which indicates when your next hearing is scheduled. The phone number is 800-898-7180. This is a computer system; not a person. When it answers, follow the instructions and, when prompted, enter your Alien number. The system will tell you your next hearing date. Unfortunately, the hotline will not be updated during the shutdown, but once the situation is resolved, you can check for your next appointment (whether cancelled Individual Hearing dates will be set for another Individual Hearing or a Master Calendar Hearing, we do not yet know).
What if you want to file documents, evidence or a change of address with the Immigration Court? Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) are accepting filings for detained cases. As I understand, most courts are also accepting filings for non-detained cases, but such filings will not be acted upon. The problem is that such filings may get lost in the avalanche of documents that the courts receive. This problem will be especially acute if the shutdown drags on for weeks or months. My advice: If you have a deadline, file your documents, but make sure to keep a copy for yourself and have evidence that you filed (if you can file in-person, the clerk will stamp your copy of the documents; if you file by mail, you should keep a copy of the certified mailing receipt). If you do not have a deadline or an emergency, it is probably better to wait until the shutdown ends before filing any documents with an Immigration Court or the BIA.
For asylum seekers and immigrants who do not have court cases, the shutdown is far less consequential. USCIS obtains its budget from “customer fees” (i.e., money you pay for your green card, work permit, etc.), and so the lapse in government funding is not an issue (there is currently no fee for asylum, but USCIS customer fees fund the Asylum Offices). As a result, the Asylum Offices, USCIS offices, and Application Support Centers (the place that takes your fingerprints) are all operating normally. While this is unlikely to change, there is no harm in double checking before you make the trek to your appointment. You can do that here.
One final question is, How long will the shutdown last? Of course, we do not know. The longest shutdown to date occurred during President Clinton’s term, and lasted 21 days. The current shutdown began on December 22, 2018, and so as of this writing, we are approaching Mr. Clinton’s (or more accurately, Newt Gingrich’s) record. The shutdown is inflicting much damage on our country, including to some immigrants and asylum seekers. Let’s hope that our leaders can bring an end to the impasse as soon as possible.
According to recent reports, the Trump Administration is considering charging $50.00 to apply for asylum in the United States. If the purpose of this fee is to dissuade people from seeking asylum, it is a stupid and cruel idea, which may violate our treaty obligations. If the purpose is to raise money to help cover the costs of the asylum process, it is merely a stupid idea.
Here is what we know so far. The Trump Administration is working on a new regulation that would require applicants who are already residing in the United States to pay $50.00 to apply for asylum. “The fee would not apply to those who claim a fear of persecution at ports of entry or those who apply for the protections while in deportation proceedings.” “There would be no waiver of the fee for those who cannot afford to pay the $50.” Currently, of course, there is no fee to file for asylum.
Why is this idea so dumb?
If the fee is meant to deter people from filing for asylum, few will be dissuaded by such a low amount. The only applicants who would potentially be blocked by this fee are those who are particularly vulnerable, such as children. In most such cases, non-profit organizations would probably cover the costs, but this will be burdensome for the non-profits, many of which are already suffering from insufficient resources. So in practical terms, this fee would block few people from asylum, but it would create a further strain on organizations that assist asylum seekers.
Wait in line for asylum with the hoi polloi? Never!
To the extent that anyone is blocked from asylum by this new policy, the fee might violate our treaty obligations (not to mention our moral responsibility to people fleeing harm). For example, Article 25 of the Refugee Convention contemplates “exceptional treatment” for indigent asylum seekers, and so people blocked by the fee would have grounds for a suit against the federal government.
Also, the idea of charging a nominal fee to people fleeing harm is just plain cruel. Many asylum seekers have suffered past harm, and they are already fearful and traumatized. The legal changes and malicious rhetoric of the Trump Administration have already increased the stress level for these vulnerable people. A filing fee would be one more indicator of how unwelcome asylum applicants are.
In addition, asylum seekers often must wait for many months before they can obtain permission to work in the United States. Talk to most asylum seekers, and you will hear stories of great financial difficulty. Many have lost property and assets at home, and are living off their savings or the goodwill of family and friends. A filing fee under these circumstances is one more strain on people who are often in dire financial straits.
Finally, asylum seekers already pay plenty of fees. Although they do not pay directly for the asylum form, they often employ lawyers and experts, or have to pay for mailing and copying fees for their evidence, and for transportation to their interview. In addition, for people granted asylum, there is the fee for the green card (currently $1,225.00) and for U.S. citizenship ($725.00). Obtaining status in the United States is not cheap, and given that they have to pay for other steps in the process, asylum seekers are pulling their weight.
If the purpose of the fee is to offset the government’s costs, perhaps there is a better way. First of all, the $50.00 fee will do little to help the government. Given that the fee will only apply to certain affirmative asylum applicants, the amount of money generated will not be significant. Based on the current number of cases filed, a $50.00 fee would add less than $5 million to the government’s coffers per year. I have not been able to find recent data on USCIS’s budget, which is almost entirely funded by user fees, but in 2008, that budget was $2.6 billion. Presumably, it is more today. Even using the 2008 figure, $5 million represents less than 0.2% of the total.
If the government wants to make a profit from asylum seekers, maybe an alternative solution is to allow “premium processing” for asylum cases. Certain types of applications allow the alien to pay an additional fee (currently $1,410.00) to have their case processed more quickly. Some asylum seekers would probably be able to afford such a fee (remember, asylum seekers have made their own way to the U.S., usually by paying for transportation and sometimes by paying a smuggler). So perhaps there is room here to make a deal (I know how much President Trump loves a good deal).
I’ve previously spoken about this idea to the muckety-mucks at the Asylum Division (and I’ve written about it here as well). I think the main objection was optics–it looks bad to charge asylum seekers a fee, and it looks bad to allow asylum seekers with money to jump ahead of those without. I get that. But now we are in a new world. The government seems to be moving forward with fees for asylum seekers. If so, at least one of these objections is off the table.
As for the fairness argument (people with money should not be processed before people without money), in my opinion, that fails as well. Name one thing about asylum that is fair? The idea of fairness just doesn’t apply to asylum, so why apply it to premium processing? Earlier this year, we switched from FIFO to LIFO, so people who apply today are often interviewed before people who have been waiting for years. Is that fair? Asylum seekers with money hire fancy lawyers to help with their cases. This isn’t fair either. So for me, at least, the fairness argument falls flat.
This is especially so given that allowing “rich” asylum applicants to pay a fee would benefit everyone in the system. People who could pay the fee would benefit the most, and their cases would move the fastest. But the infusion of money into the system and the removal of “premium” cases from the queue would benefit everyone. Even those who do not pay should see their cases processed faster than they are moving today.
So instead of charging all applicants, including indigent applicants, $50.00 to file for asylum, let’s allow those who can afford it to pay for premium processing ($1,410.00 or some other fee that makes sense). This will offset costs for the government and benefit all asylum seekers.
The indefatigable folks at TRAC Immigration have issued a new report about our nation’s Immigration Courts, and the news is not encouraging: Overall asylum denial rates are the highest we’ve seen in almost two decades. As always with asylum numbers, things are not quite so simple, so let’s take a look at what’s going on.
Fiscal Year 2018 (which ended on September 30, 2018) was noteworthy for several reasons. First, the asylum denial rate reached 65%. This caps a six year trend of increasing denial rates and represents the highest rate of denial in 20 years (between 1986 and 1999, denial rates ranged from 68% to 89%). In some ways, the news from FY2018 is worse than the average denial rate indicates. If you look at TRAC’s month-to-month chart, you can see that denial rates spiked between June 2018 and the end of the fiscal year. Thus, in the last few months of the fiscal year, denial rates were pushing 70%.
Rejection rates also went up after each Immigration Judge received a fancy new “Denied” stamp.
A second way that FY2018 stands out is that Immigration Courts adjudicated more asylum cases than any prior year: 42,224. This figure represents significantly more decisions than FY2017 (30,253) or FY2016 (22,318). Indeed, this is the most asylum cases decided in any one year since at least 1986 (I could not find data older than that).
Despite the higher denial rates, there is a silver lining to the news from FY2018: In absolute terms, more asylum cases were granted in that year (14,200) than in any previous year (in FY2017, courts granted 11,591 cases, and in FY2016, they granted 9,714 cases). Of course, the only reason so many cases were granted is because courts are adjudicating record numbers of cases overall. But these days, we takes our good news where we gets it.
These figures raise an obvious question: Why are denial rates so high?
One factor that is (probably) not to blame is the availability of help from lawyers. For the first time since FY2013, representation rates are going up. When people are represented, they are statistically more likely to win their cases. For example, in FY2016, asylum seekers without lawyers were denied 90% of the time; those with lawyers were denied only 48% of the time. While I think this disparity exaggerates the benefit of lawyers (because people with weak cases are often less likely to have representation), it is still pretty clear that having an attorney increases the likelihood of a successful outcome. Given that more people are represented these days, the increased asylum denial rate is likely not caused by an absence of legal council.
A second reason that I suspect is not to blame are the new Immigration Judges hired since the Trump Administration came into office. Since January 2017, the Executive Office for Immigration Review has significantly expanded the number of IJs nationwide. Most likely, this accounts for the increased number of decisions, but we don’t yet have data on the “Trump” judges’ denial rates. My guess is that the statistics for these new IJs will not differ very much from their more senior colleagues. I could be wrong here, but at least in my experience, the new judges do not seem any tougher than the judges that we have been dealing with for years. Perhaps as they gather more data, TRAC will issue a report about this (and maybe I will be proved wrong – I will be curious to know the answer).
One likely candidate for the increased denial rate is the case Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (AG 2018), which was issued by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions this past June. The decision made asylum more difficult for people fearing harm from non-state actors, in general, and for victims of domestic violence, in particular. After Matter of A-B- was issued, there was a corresponding uptick in asylum denial rates. Even before Matter of A-B-, however, asylum denial rates had increased since the end of the Obama Administration (and indeed, they have been increasing since 2012). This increase might reflect less significant developments in immigration case law, as well as the cultural shift that I imagine accompanies any new Administration (and especially an Administration so openly hostile to non-Americans).
When considering asylum denial rates, one important point about A-B- is that the case is limited in scope. Certain aliens–especially people fleeing domestic and gang violence in Central America and Mexico–will be disproportionately affected, but others will not be affected. Given that a large percentage of asylum cases involve Central Americans and Mexicans, a case like A-B- has a visible impact on overall denial rates, even though the impact of the decision is limited to certain types of cases. This means that while changes in the law have affected the denial rate, that effect is an “average,” and how a particular case is impacted depends on the facts of that case.
Another contributing factor to the higher denial rate may be that more long-term residents are coming into Immigration Court. This happens because the government is aggressively pursuing aliens without lawful status. It also happens because the Asylum Offices are identifying people who have been in the U.S. for more than 10 years, and trying to refer them to court.
Aliens who have been present in the United States for more than one year are often ineligible for asylum due to the one-year filing bar. There are exceptions to this rule, but it is generally more difficult for such people to win their asylum cases. Many people in this position file asylum as a last-ditch effort to remain in the United States. My guess is that as these long-term residents start to receive decisions, many will be denied, and this will contribute to the overall increased denial rate.
We’ll have to see whether the current trend continues. These days, government officials are looking for ways to make asylum more difficult, but they are limited by the law, and so it’s not clear how much higher the denial rate can go. When thinking about denial rates, it is important to remember that certain cases–Matter of A-B- cases, one-year bar cases–are probably driving the increase in denial rates. Other cases are less affected. Either way, the environment these days is not easy for any asylum seeker, and so it is more important than ever to gather evidence and present the strongest case possible.
A recent article in the Washington Post discusses the case of Santos Chirino, a Honduran man who sought asylum in the United States after gang members threatened him for testifying against one of their own. Immigration Judge Thomas Snow found that Mr. Chirino did not qualify for asylum or other relief, and ordered him deported. Eight months after he returned home, Mr. Chirino was shot dead at a soccer match.
Mr. Chirino’s is a sad and sympathetic case. But the fact is, his story tells us nothing about whether Judge Snow made the wrong decision. In fact, our asylum system is designed so that a certain percentage of those properly ordered deported will be harmed or killed in their home countries. Let me explain.
To win asylum, an applicant must demonstrate that he faces at least a 10% chance of “persecution” (serious harm or death) in the home country (this statement is a simplification, but for our purposes, it works just fine). Mathematically speaking, applicants who demonstrate a 9% chance of harm should be deported. If 100 such individuals are deported, we would expect nine of them to be persecuted upon their return.
Predicting is difficult; especially when it’s about the future.
As a conservative and cautious person, I do not like these odds. If you tell me that my airplane has a 9% of crashing, there’s no way in hell I’m getting on board. I’ll take the bus, thank you very much.
The situation is even more grim for people–such as Mr. Chirino–who do not qualify for asylum, but who still fear harm. Some people are ineligible for asylum because they committed crimes; others, like Mr. Chirino, are barred because they failed to file within one year of arriving in the U.S. and failed to meet an exception to that rule; still others are blocked because the harm they face is not “on account of” a protected ground (race, religion, nationality, particular social group or political opinion). Such people can apply for other, lesser, forms of relief: Withholding of Removal and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). But to qualify for protection under these laws, an applicant must demonstrate that she will “more likely than not” suffer persecution or torture in the home country. In other words, that the likelihood of harm is greater than 50%.
This means that under our system, applicants for Withholding or CAT who demonstrate a 49% chance of being persecuted or tortured should properly be deported. Again, if 100 such people are deported, we can expect 49 of them to be harmed. This is not very comforting for asylum applicants or their families, or for people like Judge Snow who work in the system and are tasked with enforcing the law.
There’s another side to this coin, however. That’s the case where the adjudicator grants relief, and then the person commits a bad act inside the United States. Fortunately, such cases are rare, and it has been pretty-well demonstrated that immigration to the United States has a neutral or positive effect on crime rates (this makes sense given the strict vetting process for immigrants). But there are glaring exceptions, and these tend to get significant attention. One recent case involved a Salvadoran teen accused by DHS of membership in MS-13. Last summer, an Immigration Judge found the evidence against him insufficient and ordered him released from custody. A month later, he helped commit a brutal murder. Once again, the Immigration Judge may have made the “right” decision, but the end result was tragic.
So in a sense, Immigration Judges are caught between the Charybdis of granting relief and the Scylla of denying. But to me, that is not really their problem. We live in an imperfect world, and we have an imperfect asylum system. Judges operate within that system and hopefully follow the law to the best of their ability. If a particular asylum seeker has demonstrated a 9% chance of harm, the judge should deport that person. That is the law, and if we don’t like the law, we should try to change it.
In Mr. Chirino’s case, the tragedy is compounded by the fact that his denial was likely a result of failing to meet the nonsensical one-year filing deadline. Had he filed on time, or met an exception to the one-year bar, his case would have been evaluated under an easier standard, and he might have been granted relief. Again, this is a problem with the law, not the judge, and it is up to us to change laws that we do not like.
Several years ago, I was speaking with Judge Snow, who I consider one of the best and most thoughtful judges I know. I was thinking about applying to be an Immigration Judge, and I asked him how he handles hard cases, those where his sympathies lie with the applicant, but where relief was legally unavailable. He told me that in such cases, he does his best to follow the law, even when it is difficult. That is a judge’s duty, and I have little doubt that that is what Judge Snow did in the case of Santos Chirino.
I suppose all this goes to show that what works for “the system” does not necessarily work for the individual. One could argue that Mr. Chirino was an innocent martyr of our asylum system. He and many others have died or been persecuted so that our humanitarian immigration system might exist. It is important for all of us to be aware of these sacrifices, and to work towards a more perfect and just system.
A poet once said, “It’s not how you feel; it’s how you look. And you look mah-velous!”
What does this gentle wisdom have to do with asylum cases? Simply this: Whether you have a strong case or a weak case, if you present your case in an organized and neat fashion (i.e., if you make it look marvelous), you are more likely to be granted relief.
How do I know this is true? I really don’t. I just made it up. But it seems true. Plus, I have talked to Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges, and I know they sometimes become frustrated with disorganized applications. Also, it makes sense–if you make the decider’s job easier, you are more apt to get a good decision. So how should an asylum application look?
Yours truly, several years before being voted “Best Looking Asylum Lawyer in Washington, DC.”
The first thing to know is that there are different rules for the Asylum Office and the Immigration Court. The Asylum Office rules are more lenient. When we prepare evidence for the Asylum Office, we basically follow the Immigration Court rules. In this way, we are prepared in the event that the case goes to Court. Also, the Court rules provide good guidance for how to organize a packet of documents.
First, let’s talk about Asylum Office cases. For such cases, we include a cover letter. This letter is short, and simply explains what type of application we are filing. If there are any issues of particular note, we might mention those in the cover letter–for example a one year bar issue, a criminal conviction or a prior asylum application.
Next, we include the packet of documents. We do not send any original documents; we submit copies (we have the client bring any originals to the interview). We also keep a copy of the entire packet for ourselves. Per Asylum Office rules, we submit two copies of the entire packet of documents. Each page of the packet is numbered. I put the numbers in the bottom center of each piece of paper. Also, each individual exhibit is labeled with a letter (Exhibit A, Exhibit B, etc.). In front of each exhibit is a separate page with a tab (A, B, C, etc.). If the packet of exhibits is tabbed and paginated, it is easy for the officer to find what she needs.
On top of the packet of exhibits, we include an index. The index lists each exhibit by letter and page number. I also include a brief description of each exhibit, so that the officer can read my summary, rather than a (sometimes) lengthy document. An abridged example of how we do the index is here: Example Index
The exhibits we typically submit, aside from the original I-589 form, include copies of: All passports, the applicant’s affidavit, birth certificate, marriage certificate(s), divorce documents, national ID cards, identity documents for spouse and children (passports, birth certificates, national ID cards), education documents (diplomas, transcripts, awards), employment documents, any criminal or arrest documents (from the U.S. or overseas), police reports, medical reports (including forensics reports about scars or psychological trauma), membership documents for political, religious or other organizations, letters from witnesses, threat letters or evidence of threats, relevant photos (of political activities, injuries, etc.), relevant news articles, and country and human rights reports. Any documents not in English need to betranslated with a certificate of translation. Of course,the documents we submit vary, depending on the case and what we need to prove. But the format is always the same.
Also, it is a good idea to submit the exhibits on time. These days, underLIFO, we usually complete the entire case and submit everything together with the I-589 application (since we often-times receive a quick interview date). However, if you are submitting documents after the case has already been filed, make sure your Alien number is on the cover page and the index, and make sure everything is submitted on time. Some asylum offices want your exhibits at least one week prior to the interview. You can contact the local asylum office to ask about the filing rules.
If you have a case in Immigration Court, the rules are more strict. First of all, you need to submit one copy of everything to the Court and one copy to the DHS Office of the Chief Counsel (the prosecutor). Second, you need to follow the rules related format, which you can find in theImmigration Court Practice Manual (follow the link called “OCIJ Practice Manuel;” chapter 3 and appendices F and G are particularly useful for format). Also, you need to submit a witness list (check chapter 3 of the Practice Manuel, page 57-58). The list of exhibits will look similar to what I described above for the Asylum Office index. For non-lawyers, this is all a bit much, and for this reason, if you have a case before the Immigration Court, you would do well to find an attorney to assist you (if you cannot afford a lawyer, you might be able tofind one for free).
One last tip: If possible, submit all documents by hand (and bring your copy of the exhibits so the Asylum Office or Court can stamp it with a proof of service) or by certified mail. It is common for evidence to get lost, and so it is a good idea to have proof that you submitted the evidence.
Whether your case is before the Asylum Office or the Immigration Court, it will benefit you to submit a neat, well-organized packet of evidence. And by the way, darling, you look mah-velous!
My colleague Ruth Dickey recently accompanied one of our clients to an interview with the ICE Counter-Terrorism Unit, after the client was ordered to report for questioning. She writes about her experience here:
ICE has been in the news lately for its role in apprehending migrants, detaining parents, and increasing deportations. For the public, the agency has become synonymous with the current administration’s aggressive approach to enforcement. Rightly or wrongly, ICE agents are portrayed as a boogeymen, and the #AbolishICE hashtag continues to trend ever upwards.
Ruth Dickey, immigration attorney extraordinaire.
What many people do not know is that ICE has two divisions that work with the public: Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”), which is responsible for most of those gut-wrenching daily headlines, and Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”). HSI is usually seen as a “good guy” agency. Agents track down terrorists and pedophiles, counter human trafficking, and help interdict illegal drugs. They do important work that protects us from transnational criminal organizations and other bad actors. When ICE issues a press release about a success story, it’s usually for something that HSI has done. The fact is, HSI’s work is generally more brag-worthy than anything ERO is doing.
HSI, it turns out, seems a bit embarrassed to be associated with the notorious ERO. Indeed, a group of HSI Special Agents recently published an open letter to DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen requesting to break off from the rest of ICE. In the letter, the agents explain that,
HSI’s investigations have been perceived as targeting undocumented aliens, instead of the transnational criminal organizations that facilitate cross border crimes impacting our communities and national security. Furthermore, the perception of HSI’s investigative independence is unnecessarily impacted by the political nature of ERO’s civil immigration enforcement.
The agents complain that cities and towns are unwilling to partner with HSI unless they hide the agency’s connection with ICE. It seems that HSI is eager to maintain the image of a law enforcement agency that helps, not hurts. Its association with ICE makes HSI less effective because localities are reluctant to work with HSI agents.
Give this background, we were surprised recently when one of our clients was contacted by HSI’s National Security Group-Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit. Our client had come to the United States for an education program. He had been thoroughly vetted prior to arrival, and was bright and ambitious enough to merit a scholarship funded by the U.S. Department of State.
While he was in the U.S., our client was outed as a gay man and he received several death threats from back home. All this took place shortly before his student status ended, and he hired us to file for asylum. His case was filed a few weeks after his classes finished (meaning that he had just fallen out of status). By the time HSI contacted him, our client’s asylum application was already pending, and he had received his receipt.
Our client is law abiding, and doesn’t have so much as a speeding ticket, so it was strange that HSI would have an interest in him, much less the counterterrorism unit.
I attended our client’s HSI interview in a drab office building near the airport. I went there not knowing what to expect. The agents obtained basic biographic information and took out client’s fingerprints. Then the agents told us that they were arresting the client, releasing him, and issuing him a notice to appear in Immigration Court (an NTA). In the ensuing discussion, the agents told us:
That the Immigration Court would decide our client’s case more quickly than the Asylum Office (apparently, the agents weren’t familiar with the LIFO policy, which went into effect in January).
That sending the case to court was not a waste of resources, since the case might have been referred to court anyway (that is, the agents inappropriately speculated about the merits of the case, even though they seemed to know nothing about it).
That our client would be required to attend regular check-ins at ERO to prove he was not a flight risk (despite his strong asylum claim, which he filed voluntarily).
Our client had to surrender his passport, and the agents would not give him a receipt or a certified copy of the document. Thus, he had no evidence that his passport was in HSI’s possession (inappropriate and incredibly inconvenient, given that the passport was his only form of ID).
That I (the lawyer) should not question the agents’ actions, since their children receive death threats (you would think that these alleged threats might generate some empathy for asylum seekers, but I digress).
Technically, the agents are correct that they have the power to send our client to court since he was already out-of-status. But here, I want to focus on why this approach is inefficient and inhumane.
First, our client already had a pending affirmative asylum application with USCIS at the time of his “arrest.” Such cases are less stressful on the applicant, as they consist of a (theoretically) non-confrontational interview. Contrast this with the adversarial hearing in Immigration Court. Also, under the new LIFO system, most new affirmative asylum cases (like our client’s) will be decided much more quickly than the average asylum case in Court. Further, Asylum Office cases are cheaper for the applicant in terms of lawyer’s fees, since such cases require less attorney time than Court cases.
Second, from the government’s perspective, affirmative asylum cases are less expensive and more efficient than Immigration Court cases. For one thing, the Asylum Office is funded by USCIS user fees (meaning, when you pay a USCIS fee, some of the money goes to the cost of running our affirmative asylum system). Immigration Court cases, on the other hand, are paid for by taxpayers. Court cases also involve more people: The Immigration Judge, the court-appointed interpreter, the Court staff, the DHS attorney, and—in my client’s case—ICE agents. Asylum Office cases involve fewer people, and so are less expensive. Indeed, the raison d’etre for the Asylum Offices is to reduce the burden on Immigration Courts by resolving asylum cases before they land in proceedings.
Third, one main purpose of the Immigration Court is to deport people who have no legal right to be in the United States. This includes people convicted of crimes and people who pose a threat to national security. The more the court system is clogged with cases like our client’s, the less able it will be to deal with people who may be a danger to our country.
So here is my advice for HSI: If you don’t want to be “perceived as targeting undocumented aliens,” then maybe you should try not targeting undocumented aliens, like my client. HSI should consider efficiency and humanity before tossing affirmative asylum applicants into the Immigration Court system merely because they are out of status. If they want to do the right thing, HSI can start by revoking our client’s NTA and allowing the Asylum Office to adjudicate his case.
