DHS and Mentally Ill Respondents: Why Is the Fox Guarding the Hen House?

by Jason Dzubow

I recently learned about the removal case of mentally ill man from Africa.  Several years ago, the man was granted Withholding of Removal from his country because he faced persecution there.  His immigration case was recently re-opened after he committed a crime rendering him ineligible for Withholding.  He might still be eligible for relief under the UN Convention Against Torture, if he demonstrates that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured in his country.   

Based on an expert report, the Immigration Judge found that the man (who cannot be identified here) was not competent to represent himself.  At the IJ’s insistence, DHS appointed a custodian, an ICE Detention and Removal Officer.  At the hearing, the ICE officer failed to appear, so the IJ dismissed the case.  The IJ found that, because the alien could not represent himself, the absence of a custodian violated his right to due process of law.  DHS appealed and the case is currently before the Board of Immigration Appeals.

What concerns me is not the failure of the custodian to appear for the hearing (it seemed to be an honest mistake), but the fact that the custodian was an ICE Detention and Removal Officer.  Why is the person charged with physically detaining and removing the alien the same person who is supposed to represent the alien’s interests in court?  Clearly, something needs to be done.

According to the Immigration Policy Center, over the last year or so, DHS has been working with stakeholders to improve the situation for mentally ill aliens in immigration court.  Some issues are: (1) The absence of a formal mechanism to identify mentally ill aliens in immigration court; (2) Mentally disabled aliens are not appointed counsel in immigration court; (3) Aliens with mental disabilities cannot effectively represent themselves in court; and (4) Immigration judges have too many cases to effectively address the needs of aliens with mental disabilities.  Perhaps DHS will issue some standards to protect mentally ill aliens, though it is unlikely that the standards currently under consideration would satisfy advocates for the mentally ill.  (The Legal Action Center of the American Immigration Counsel has an informative website about this issue).

In the mean time, the BIA might take matters into its own hands.  In the pending case of Matter of L-T-, the Boards has requested briefing on issues related to mentally ill aliens in immigration court.  An amicus brief filed in this case by the Legal Action Center (formerly AILF) is available here.

Mentally ill aliens in immigration court face many difficulties.  At the minimum, we should try to ensure that their due process rights are protected.  As things stand now, that is not the case. 

Continue reading

2 Comments

Immigration Judges Repudiate Asylum Officers

by Jason Dzubow

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

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

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

Year

 IJ Grant Rate for Affirmative Asylum Cases

IJ Grant Rate for Defensive Asylum Cases

 FY 2006

 51%

 34%

 FY 2007

 51%

 39%

 FY 2008

 51%

 37%

 FY 2009

 55%

 36%

 FY 2010

 61%

 35%

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading

7 Comments

Witnesses: The Triumph or Tragedy of an Asylum Case

by Jason Dzubow

I finished my last asylum trial of the year earlier this month, and I almost lost the case, thanks to a witness who had flown in from Cameroon especially for the occasion. 

I felt that our case was pretty strong–my client was a political activist who had been arrested several times in his country.  The case was well documented, and my client seemed credible.  Even the government attorney indicated that we should get it over with quickly–a sure sign that she anticipated a grant.  Then, basically out of nowhere, the witness starts babbling about the time he and my client were arrested together in Cameroon.  My client had never mentioned this arrest to me, nor had the witness told me about it during our preparation session.  In Immigration Court, attorneys are not permitted to strangle their own witnesses, so there was nothing I could do but watch my case go down the drain.  Fortunately, during re-direct, I was able to elicit some explanation from the witness.  Then we had my client return to the stand to further clarify.  In the end, the Judge granted relief, but a strong case was nearly sunk by a witness with a big mouth.

The Rules of Professional Conduct do not allow an attorney to strangle a witness, even when it seems justified.

All this raises the question: Do the benefits of witnesses outweigh the risks?  It’s a question I have thought a lot about.  On the one hand, the REAL ID Act requires us to submit reasonably available evidence, so if a witness is available and we do not bring her to Court, the IJ could use that to support a denial.  On the other hand, it is difficult to hold the respondent responsible for a witness who fails to appear, and a well-supported case will likely be granted even when there is no witness. 

Nevertheless, I tend to bring witnesses to Court if I have them.  For one thing (and perhaps this is naive), I feel a certain duty to present my case, for better or worse.  If the IJ sees that we are presenting everything we have, and being as open as possible, I believe that we are more likely to win the case.  Also, I feel it makes me a more credible lawyer, and thus helps my clients over the long run.  In addition (and again, possibly naively), I believe I can usually prepare the witness for cross examination and anticipate questions that the DHS attorney might ask.  When the respondent and her witness testify consistently about details of an event (especially when those details have not been presented previously in the written statements), it is strong evidence of their veracity.  Finally, I tend to believe (maybe yet again naively) that my clients are telling me the truth when they describe the basis for their asylum claim.  If the client is telling the truth, a well-prepared witness should only help the case.  If the client is lying about his claim, and inconsistent testimony exposes the lie, the client really only has himself to blame. 

Of course, even in a completely bona fide case, an ill-prepared or foolish witness can tank an asylum claim.  That is why I am very wary of witnesses who can corroborate large tracts of a respondent’s story.  The more the witness knows about a respondent’s story, the more opportunities exist for the DHS attorney (or the IJ) to ask detailed question about information not in the written statement and that we did not discuss during trial preparation (the idea is to ask questions that the witnesses are not prepared for, and then compare the answers to make sure the testimony is consistent).  Such questions can be confusing to witnesses who–despite repeated reminders not to do so–sometimes guess at the answers.  A better witness is a person with first-hand knowledge of one small part of the case.  Such a person is less likely to face a broad range of questions from the DHS attorney.

Despite the risks, I feel that a well-prepared witness can go a long way towards winning an asylum case.  I can think of several cases that were won by credible witnesses.  Each case is different, and there are good arguments for avoiding the risks inherent in using a witness.  Despite the risks, I will continue to favor the use of witnesses in my cases.    

Continue reading

1 Comment

When Silence is Golden: Interpreters and Asylum

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

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

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

Continue reading

It’s Getting Easier to Win Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

A recent report from TRAC Immigration reveals that the nation-wide asylum denial rate in Immigration Court has reached a 25-year low.  That means that a higher percentage of asylum seekers are receiving asylum than ever before.

The statistics show that in Fiscal Year 1986, 89% of asylum applications in Immigration Court were denied.  For the first nine months of the current fiscal year, only 50% of asylum cases in court were denied. 

The most obvious explanation for the higher grant rate is that a larger proportion of asylum seekers are now represented by attorneys–for FY 2010, 91% of asylum seekers were represented by attorneys; in 1986, only 52% of asylum seekers were represented. 

For those not represented by counsel, the difference in grant rate is stark: For FY 2010, only 11% of unrepresented asylum seekers received asylum in immigration court.  While this demonstrates the importance of legal representation, I suspect it also reflects the fact that aliens with weak claims often cannot find pro bono representation (law firms won’t take cases that are not meritorious).  Thus, this statistic may not be quite as bad as it seems.

Another reason for the improved grant rate may be that aliens are applying for asylum less frequently than in the past.  Since FY 2003, when Immigration Judges decided 35,782 asylum cases, the number of asylum cases has dropped to a projected 19,937 for FY 2010.  Perhaps aliens have become more savvy about what constitutes a bona fide claim, and they are more selective in making their applications for asylum. 

Finally, the TRAC report shows that the asylum grant rates for individual IJs continues to vary widely, though there seems to have been a slight improvement.  I have always felt that more guidance from the BIA–in terms of more published decisions–would help to reduce these disparities.  

The best news from the TRAC report is that most asylum seekers are now represented by legal counsel.  Hopefully, this means that their claims are being presented properly and that few aliens with meritorious claims are being denied.

Continue reading

2 Comments

How Safe Are Immigration Judges?

by Jason Dzubow


Government Executive reports on a recent event at the National Press Club featuring Judge Randall Frye from the Social Security Administration and president of the Association of Administrative Law Judges, and Judge Dana Leigh Marks, an immigration judge in San Francisco and president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.  The pair described threats to judges involving guns, baseball bats, cut brake lines, and broken legs.

A safe judge is a happy judge.

“Between March 2009 and February 2010, SSA offices that handle disability claims received 49 threats; individual Social Security judges received 20 threats,” reported Government Executive.   “At a Las Vegas federal courthouse in January, a man believed to have been irate over a reduction in his Social Security benefits gunned down a courthouse official and injured a U.S. deputy marshal.”  There are no statistics available from the Department of Justice concerning threats to immigration judges or court personnel, but given the high-stakes nature of proceedings, it would not be surprising if threats have been made. 

The main concern is lack of security at certain immigration and SSA courts.  Many such courts are not housed in government buildings and do not have rigorous screening procedures.  Immigration courts also often lack secure parking lots, elevators, and entryways.  At the Press Club event, Immigration Judge Marks pointed out that “she could ride the elevator with someone whom she decided to deport.”  That is certainly the case in the courts where I litigate. 

Suggestions for improvements included increasing the number of security guards in the reception area, stationing a bailiff in every active courtroom, higher railings in front of judges’ benches, and creating secure entrances, exits, and parking lots for judges.  At the minimum, the Justice Department should make available data on threats to immigration courts.  Then, at least, we could have a sense of the problem.

Of course, improvements to security cost money, which seems to be in short supply.  As the number of cases (and level of frustration) in immigration courts increase, we should not forget to ensure the safety of those who enforce and adjudicate our immigration law.  Let’s hope we don’t have to wait for a tragedy to realize the importance of protecting our public servants.

Continue reading

Pre-election Leak Led to Aunt Zeituni’s Asylum Grant

by Jason Dzubow

In May 2010, an Immigration Judge in Boston granted asylum to President Obama’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango.  The decision sparked protests from some who claimed (without evidence) that the President used his influence to help his relative.

Now, the Boston Globe reports that the IJ’s decision has been released in response to a Freedom of Information Act Request.  The 29-page decision is largely redacted, but the IJ’s reasoning seems clear.  On November 1, 2008, shortly before the presidential election, the Associated Press reported that Barack Obama’s Kenyan aunt was living in the U.S. illegally.  Regarding the source of this information, the AP wrote:

Information about the deportation case was disclosed and confirmed by two separate sources, one of them a federal law enforcement official. The information they made available is known to officials in the federal government, but the AP could not establish whether anyone at a political level in the Bush administration or in the McCain campaign had been involved in its release.

Based on this statement, the IJ found that “an official of the United States government disclosed the Respondent’s status as an asylum applicant… to the public at large.”  The IJ found that this disclosure–which clearly violated federal regulations–was a “reckless and illegal violation of her right to privacy which has exposed her to great risk.”  He further found that this exposure distinguished the aunt from President Obama’s other relatives living safely in Kenya because her asylum case was revealed in a “highly politicized manner.”  (According to a recent AP article, DHS is investigating the leak.)

Given the country conditions in Kenya, the IJ found that Ms. Zeituni would be a target and that she had “at least a 10% chance of future persecution.”  The IJ granted asylum, but declined to rule on her applications for withholding of removal or relief under the UN Convention Against Torture.

Continue reading

EOIR Makes Court Information Line More Secure and More Annoying

by Jason Dzubow

From an EOIR press release issued earlier today:

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) announced today the launch of a new, upgraded automated case information system, which is designed to assist respondents and their representatives and families in learning the current status of their proceedings. The toll-free number, 1-800-898-7180, has not changed, but a new local number, 240-314-1500, is in service. The system becomes effective August 23, 2010, and callers will need to be prepared to enter both the alien registration number and the date of the respondent’s charging document.

This development–at least on the immigration lawyer list serve I read–has been universally panned.  The problem is, aliens and their representatives often do not have the date of the charging document.  And if you do not have the charging document, it is not easy to get one.  You can file a FOIA request, which takes months (I think the “F” in FOIA stands for “Forever”).  You can call up DHS counsel, but they are often not very responsive.  You can go to the Immigration Court to look at the file, which is too time-consuming for most advocates, especially those who work for not profit organizations.  Also, sometimes there is more than one charging document, and they might have different dates.

"I said I don't have the dang charging document!"

I suppose EOIR’s intention–to make the court information more secure–is laudable (though I have never heard of anyone having a problem with the current level of security).  But by requiring information that may not be available to the alien, the agency is creating a situation where it will be more difficult for aliens and their attorneys to know their court dates.  This could cause aliens to miss their court dates, which would result in a removal order.  In short, it is another bureaucratic barrier thrown in front of the alien. 

There are alternatives.  My favorite alternative is to leave the system alone.  As I mentioned, I have not heard about problems with the current system.  Another alternative is to remove the alien’s name from the computer system (the current system spells the alien’s name after you type in his A-number).  This would provide some level of security.  A third possibility would be to require some other information that the alien would know, like her birth date or her country of origin. 

At this time, it is unclear whether EOIR vetted the new system with AILA or other advocacy groups.  Perhaps a short pause to consider alternatives and have a conversation with immigration attorneys would be in order.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Mexican Woman Receives Asylum on Account of Domestic Violence

by Jason Dzubow

The New York Times reports that an Immigration Judge in California has granted asylum to a Mexican woman–referred to as L.R.–who was the victim of severe domestic violence.  Her common-law husband repeatedly raped her, threatened her with a gun and a machete, and tried to burn her to death.  In April 2009, the Department of Homeland Security filed a brief that paved the way for last week’s decision.  That brief, which represented a reversal of DHS’s position during the Bush administration, concluded that “it is possible” that the Mexican woman “and other applicants who have experienced domestic violence could qualify for asylum.”  According to the brief:

DHS suggests that the particular social group in asylum and withholding of removal claims based on domestic violence is best defined based on the evidence about how the respondent’s abuser and her society perceive her role within the domestic relationship….  A group defined in light of this evidence might be articulated as “Mexican women in domestic relationships who are unable to leave” or as “Mexican women who are viewed as property by virtue of their positions within a domestic relationship.”  DHS believes that groups understood in these ways, if adequately established in the record in any given case, would meet the requirements for a particular social group…

DHS also notes that the applicant must show that she cannot relocate within the country and that the government is unable or unwilling to protect her.  These factors will be determinative in most domestic violence asylum cases.

In L.R.’s case, experts testified that the police and government officials could not and would not protect her because of “the enormous social and cultural tolerance of this abuse, resulting in the virtual complicity of authorities who should prevent and punish these violent acts.”  L.R. herself testified that she went to the authorities for help, and one “judge had offered to help her if she would have sex with him.”  Thus, there was compelling evidence that the government would not protect her.  There was also compelling evidence and expert testimony that she could not relocate within Mexico.

The extreme facts of this case combined with documentary evidence and expert witness testimony led to an asylum grant.  It is doubtful that many abused women will have the same resources and support that were available to L.R. and that were the keys to success in her case.  However, L.R.’s case has established a framework for asylum based on domestic violence.  Now, at least, such women have a chance to gain protection in the United States.

Continue reading

What Not to Wear in Court

by Jason Dzubow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading

2 Comments

The “Unobservable Factors” that Influence Asylum Decisions

by Jason Dzubow

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

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

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

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

Gender

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

Education

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

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

 

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

Religion

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

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

Marital Status

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

Some Thoughts

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

Continue reading

1 Comment

Update from EOIR at the AILA Conference

by Jason Dzubow

As I mentioned in a previous post, I attended the American Immigration Lawyers Association annual conference last week.  One panel I went to included a talk by the Chief Immigration Judge of the United States, Brian M. O’Leary.  Judge O’Leary previously served as an IJ in Arlington, Virginia, and I tried a number of cases before him.  As much as I think he is doing a great job as Chief Judge, he is certainly missed by those of us who practice in Virginia.

Judge O’Leary updated us on the news at EOIR.  We learned that there are 43 new IJs “in the pipeline” and they are expected to start work by the end of the year.  During the last round of hiring, over 1,700 people applied for 28 positions, and Judge O’Leary is confident that the new IJs will be very competent.  EOIR will be opening a new Immigration Court in Texas later this summer; this will be the 59th Immigration Court in the United States.  Hopefully all this will help alleviate the long waits that have become so common in almost all Immigration Courts.

Speaking of long waits, Judge O’Leary noted that receipt of new cases was up 17% from 2007 to 2009, with an 11% rise in the last year alone.  This is because DHS is bringing more aliens into the system.  Completion rates are also up, but only by 4%, which is not keeping pace with the ever-growing case load.  Judge O’Leary also stated–and this was a surprise to me–that the detained docket has reached nearly 50% of all cases in Court.  He speculated that this may be because DHS has more beds available and they are making a greater effort to detain criminal aliens.  Apparently, DOJ/EOIR and DHS have been meeting to review the immigration process.  Hopefully, this will give EOIR a heads up about how many new cases are coming into the system (DHS brings new cases to EOIR when they file papers to remove an alien), which will allow EOIR to better anticipate its docket.

We also heard that there will be a new Assistant Chief Immigration Judge (“ACIJ”) whose portfolio will include only “vulnerable populations,” such as juveniles and aliens with mental disabilities.  Such people have often had great difficulty in Immigration Court, and hopefully an ACIJ devoted completely to them will improve the situation.  Another ACIJ has a portfolio that includes training new (and old) IJs.

In terms of improvements to the Court facilities, Judge O’Leary noted that most Courts now have digital-audio recording.  The only exceptions are Los Angeles and Hawaii, and those Courts should have the new system by August.  The digital-audio recording system records Court proceedings on a computer hard drive.  This is an improvement over the old system, which used cassette tapes.  The system is controlled by the IJ on the bench and cannot be used to listen to conversations going on when the IJ is not in the courtroom (I must admit that wasn’t sure whether anyone could listen in when I was in the courtroom and I have been careful about what I say; despite Judge O’Leary’s assurance, I guess I am too paranoid to change my ways).

There have also been some personnel changes.  EOIR has been increasing the number of judicial law clerks.  Currently there are 65 JLCs.  In FY 2011, there will be 90.  In addition, the tenure for the clerks has been increased from one year to two years.  This latter development is very significant.  I served as a JLC back in the late 1990s.  I felt like I was reaching my stride after the first year, and I think I could have made a greater contribution to the Court if I had had a second year.  I think the IJs will notice a difference in the quality of their help during the JLC’s second year.

If you are interested in learning more about EOIR (from their point of view), visit their website.  For independent statistical information about EOIR, visit the TRAC website, which collects and publishes a wide range of data on the agency.

Continue reading

Report from the AILA Conference

by Jason Dzubow

So, for the time since I struck out on my own as an attorney, I attended an AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Association) conference.  I had avoided it in the past because it was too expensive (about $800.00 for the conference fee alone) and I didn’t think I would get much out of it.  Turns out, I really enjoyed the conference–it is fun to meet and hear about people who are doing the same work as you and who speak the same “language,” though invariably I spent most of the time hanging out with people I already knew.  Although the fee was pretty steep, I’m glad I went, and maybe I will go again next year if I am feeling flush.

I also had an opportunity to speak on a panel with some very impressive people, including two professors, a USCIS employee, and another private attorney.  The subject was the UN Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).  More specifically, we talked about how the Torture Convention might apply to non-governmental actors.  My role was pretty easy–I presented some hypothetical examples for the audience and the panelists to discuss.  Since I am not so creative, my hypos were actual cases that I had litigated.  One “hypo” examined whether a woman who feared female genital mutilation in her country could gain relief under the CAT.  In real life, I lost that case, though I managed to convince the IJ that FGM was torture.  At least one federal court of appeals has found that FGM can constitute torture. See Tunis v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2006).  The other case involved an African drug smuggler who feared that corrupt police would kill him to retaliate for his cooperation with the U.S. authorities.  That case, I won, as there was strong evidence that he would be murdered if he returned to his home country.

The audience responds to my analysis of the UN Convention Against Torture.

Aside from that panel, there were a number of panels–and some informal meetings–relevant to the asylum practitioner.  Two that were directly related to asylum law were a panel on demonstrating harm in asylum applications, and another examining what constitutes a “particular social group.”  I thought both panels were helpful, and they featured some of the top people in the field, including speakers from law schools, USCIS, the United Nations, and various human rights groups (shout out to Human Rights First, who was there en mass). 

AILA is often perceived as an organization more relevant to business immigration than to asylum or Immigration Court practice.  Maybe it was the people I hung out with and met, but there seemed to be a lot of fellow travelers at the conference.  The fact is, however, that there is not a whole lot of crossover between business immigration and asylum/deportation defense.  One solution might be to have a conference targeted at the more public interest-oriented practitioners, and a second conference for the business practitioner.  Although my eyes glaze over at the thought of working on a business immigration case, I must confess that it was nice to attend a conference with all sorts of immigration attorneys.  There is certainly something to be said for not becoming over specialized, and the diverse topics at the AILA conference gave us a chance to learn about something new.  

Overall, it was a useful and energizing conference.  I hope to be back next year.

Continue reading

Decision to Deny Asylum to “Son of Hamas” Is “Idiotic”

by Jason Dzubow

We’ve reported before about Mossad Hassan Yousef, son of Hamas founding member Sheikh Hassan Yousef.  The younger Yousef converted to Christianity, worked undercover to stop terrorist attacks against Israel, and wrote a book about his experience.  He has been living in California for the last few years and his application for asylum was recently rejected because he supposedly provided “material support” to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.  Mr. Yousef claims any “support” he provided was done in the course of learning about the organization in order to prevent terrorist attacks.  His case is currently before an Immigration Judge, who will review his claim for asylum de novo.

Now, in an unprecedented move, a former Shin Bet (Israeli security) agent has come forward to verify Mr. Yousef’s claim.  The Jewish Journal reports that Gonen Ben-Yitzhak confirmed that Mr. Yousef provided information that “prevent[ed] attacks that saved countless Israeli and Arab lives.”  Mr. Ben-Yitzak will testify at Mr. Yousef’s upcoming asylum hearing. 

It is illegal for a former Shin Bet agent to publicly reveal his name, and Mr. Ben-Yitzak faces potential legal trouble in Israel when he returns:

“It’s my country, my land. I love the Shin Bet, and I love Israel. But I have to help my friend,” he said of the San Diego hearing. “This is my duty — to stand with him and say the truth. It’s something I need to do. He always stood beside me. In the harshest days of the second intifadah, I called and asked about his opinion because his understanding about Hamas is unbelievable.”

The two men received awards at a dinner sponsored by the Endowment for Middle East Truth, a pro-Israel organization.  Other muckety-mucks at the dinner included Senator Sam Brownback, Congressman Brad Sherman, and Congressman Doug Lamborn.  The event was held at the U.S. Senate, leading Mr. Yousef to joke, “How did security let a terrorist like me into this building?” 

Mr. Yousef’s asylum hearing is scheduled for next week.  There seems little doubt that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in the Palestinian territory–not just for his efforts against Hamas, but also for his apostasy (he has publicly referred to Islam as a religion of hate).  The issue is whether his “support” for Hamas will disqualify him for asylum.  Mr. Ben-Yitzak’s testimony should go a long way towards solving the “material support” problem.  And even if the Immigration Judge determines that Mr. Yousef supported Hamas, he should still qualify for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which would allow him to remain in the United States.

When asked about the U.S. government’s effort to deport Mr. Yousef, Mr. Ben-Yitzak, the former Shin Bet agent, said, “It’s hard for me to understand — very hard for me to understand.”  Former CIA director James Woolsey was less diplomatic.  “My view is that the decision to deny him political refugee status was incredibly idiotic,” Woolsey said.  “It’s hard to think of a worse immigration decision in history.  It’s fundamentally nuts.”

Continue reading

Immigration Court Backlog Keeps Getting Worse

by Jason Dzubow

A new report by TRAC, a group that collects information on immigration cases, finds that the backlog in Immigration Courts is worse than ever: 

The number of cases awaiting resolution before the Immigration Courts reached a new all-time high of 242,776 at the end of March 2010, according to very timely government enforcement data obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). The case backlog has continued to grow — up 6.3 percent — since TRAC’s last report four months ago, and nearly a third higher (30.4%) than levels a mere 18 months ago.

"Is it time for my immigration hearing yet?"

The backlog has resulted in longer delays in Immigration Court:

Wait times have also continued to inch upward. The average time these pending cases have been waiting in the Immigration Courts of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is now 443 days.

The longest delays are in California, where the average wait time is 627 days.  TRAC blames the delays mainly on an insufficient number of IJs.  I’ve discussed that issue before (We Need More Judges).  In a recent exchange with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), that group argued that aliens are largly to blame for delays since they abuse the system to prolong (or completely avoid) removal.  Maybe I will devote a future blog post to the reasons for delay, but for now, it seems the wait times are longer than ever and there is little relief in sight. 

Continue reading