Tips from a Former Asylum Officer

by Jason Dzubow

Heidi Boas has dedicated her legal career to assisting asylum-seekers, refugees, and other immigrants through her work with the U.S. Government, United Nations, and non-profit organizations. Heidi served as a Senior Asylum Officer at the Arlington Asylum Office (2014-2017) and currently practices immigration law at Wilkes Legal, LLC in Takoma Park, MD. Heidi’s full biography can be found here.

Heidi Boas

Contact Heidi Boas at heidi@wilkeslegal.com. To schedule a consultation with an immigration attorney at Wilkes Legal, LLC, visit our website or call (301) 576-0491.

Given the large backlog and heavy caseload at the asylum office, asylum officers are under significant pressure to complete cases as efficiently as possible. An asylum officer is allocated an average of four hours to complete each asylum case, which involves some steps that you and your attorney don’t see—including about an hour spent drafting the written decision, and about forty minutes working on security checks and other administrative tasks. When you add those steps to the two hours that an asylum officer spends conducting the average asylum interview, the officer may have only about twenty minutes to review your file before calling you in for the interview. When preparing your asylum case, therefore, it is helpful to keep the asylum officer’s time constraints in mind and avoid submitting extraneous information.

Below are some tips from my perspective as a former asylum officer on how to prepare an effective and efficient asylum claim:

The Personal Statement

The personal statement is arguably the most important document in your asylum application, but it does not need to be very long. If the asylum officer only has twenty minutes to review your file, she probably will not have time to read your attorney’s lengthy legal brief, but she should always take time to read your personal statement. Given the time pressure that the officer is under, it is best to keep your personal statement concise and to the point. I recommend limiting it to a length of five pages or less. State up front why you are applying for asylum—What harm did you suffer in the past or do you fear in the future? Why were you harmed in the past, and/or why do you fear harm in the future? Avoid including extraneous information such as details about your family background, education, and employment history. Basic information about your background is included in the Form I-589 Application for Asylum, and additional detail is often irrelevant to your asylum claim. The main purpose of the personal statement is to focus on any harm that you suffered in the past and any harm you fear in the future. Leave general references to country conditions out of the personal statement and focus on telling your story. Finally, make sure that you fully understand the contents of your personal statement before signing it, and that the statement has been translated back to you word-for-word in your language.

Supporting Documents

Keeping in mind the asylum officer’s time constraints, you should avoid submitting extraneous or duplicative documents in support of your asylum claim. For example, it is usually not helpful to submit copies of your diplomas or school records, as these documents are usually irrelevant to your asylum claim. It is also unnecessary to submit hundreds of pages of country conditions documents. Asylum officers are already familiar with human rights conditions in many countries and keep their own country conditions excerpts on hand to use when writing decisions. If an asylum officer is not already familiar with the situation in your country, the officer will conduct research and find relevant information to include in his or her written decision. Asylum officers generally consult the Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, as these reports are considered an objective and reliable source of information. Since asylum officers have their own resources for finding country conditions information, you should be mindful of the number of pages you submit and highlight any excerpts of a report that you want the officer to focus on.

Form I-589

Take the time to carefully prepare the Form I-589 Application for Asylum, including details about where you have lived, your education, and your employment history. This can help save time when the asylum officer reviews the form with you during your interview. If you have several changes or corrections to make to Form I-589 at the interview, it is helpful to provide the officer with a list of your changes. The asylum officer is still required to note any corrections or changes by hand on the original Form I-589, but your list can help save the officer some time.

Under “other names used,” list as aliases any alternate spellings (including misspellings) or alternate versions of your name that you have used. By listing these other names on Form I-589, you can help avoid delays during the security check process. After receiving the asylum application, the asylum office will automatically run security checks on any names listed on Form I-589. If the asylum officer learns during or after the interview that you have used another version or spelling of your name that was not initially listed on Form I-589, the officer must then initiate the security check process for that name, which could cause a delay in receiving your decision.

The Legal Argument

Asylum officers are required to undergo an extensive six-week training program in asylum law, and pass exams before adjudicating asylum cases. In addition, they continue receiving weekly training throughout their tenure at the asylum office. If confronted with a challenging or unfamiliar legal issue, asylum officers are encouraged to refer to the Asylum Officer Training Manual or consult a supervisor.

In light of the training that asylum officers receive and the significant time constraints they face, it is not necessary to submit a lengthy legal brief in support of your asylum case. The asylum officer probably won’t have time to read the brief word-for-word and may not have time to read it at all. If you or your attorney are making a novel legal argument or referencing new case law and want to submit your argument in writing, try to keep your analysis as concise as possible. A succinct cover letter can suffice, for example, instead of a lengthy brief.

Preparing for the Interview

When preparing for the asylum interview, don’t avoid addressing the tough issues. A critical part of an asylum officer’s job is to assess your credibility, so you should discuss with your attorney any potential credibility issues that could arise and be prepared for questions about those issues at your interview. An asylum officer is required to confront you about any inconsistencies in your testimony or application, give you an opportunity to explain the inconsistency, and then assess the reasonableness of your response. Be prepared to respond calmly and provide an explanation for any inconsistencies, rather than reacting defensively to the officer’s question.

After the Interview

After the interview, if you strongly disagree with the asylum officer’s decision, consider filing a Motion to Reopen or Reconsider. No form or filing fee is required. The motion should be filed within 30 days, or later if you can show the delay was reasonable and beyond your control. It is best to submit the motion by letter to the asylum office as soon as possible after receiving your decision. If the asylum office receives your motion soon enough, it can decide to call you back in for a re-interview before serving a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) on the court. Alternatively, if the NTA has already been served on the court, the asylum office can ask Immigration and Customers Enforcement to terminate the NTA and recall the case to the asylum office for another interview.

If you have been waiting months or years since your interview to receive a decision from the asylum office, you might consider filing a writ of mandamus. A mandamus can help incentivize the asylum office to call you in for another interview and finally issue a decision. Even if the asylum office’s decision is not a positive one, you can move forward with presenting your case before the immigration judge and then pursuing any necessary appeals.

Continue reading

231 Comments

Attorney General Seeks to Limit Asylum… Or Something

by Jason Dzubow

The Attorney General, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, has been busy “certifying” cases to himself in order to (apparently) reduce protections for certain asylum seekers. I want to talk about two cases in particular, but first, let’s talk about the process that Mr. Sessions is following.

“Oh Magoo, you’ve done it again!”

The decisions in question involve cases that were before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”), the administrative appellate body that interprets the nation’s immigration laws. The BIA has been called (sometimes derisively) the “Supreme Court of immigration law.” The BIA is not actually a court in the normal sense of the word (and, by the way, neither are the Immigration Courts). Instead, it is an office within the U.S. Department of Justice. The leader of the Department of Justice is the Attorney General (“AG”). So in essence, the BIA derives its power from the AG, who is the ultimate “decider” when it comes to BIA cases.

What has been happening recently is that Mr. Sessions has been “certifying” cases from the BIA to himself. Basically, this means that he is taking the cases from the BIA and changing the Board’s decisions. In a sense, this is nothing new–previous AGs have done the same thing on occasion. But the concern here is two-fold: Substantively, the AG seems to be moving towards limiting the scope of asylum protections in some types of cases, and procedurally, the AG’s actions do not comport with due process of law, at least as that concept is understood in non-totalitarian countries.

The first case I want to discuss is Matter of E-F-H-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 226 (AG 2018). In that case, the AG vacated a 2014 BIA decision (also called Matter of E-F-H-L-) and returned the matter to the Immigration Judge (the letters in the case name refer to the alien’s initials). The 2014 case stands for the proposition that an asylum applicant is entitled to a hearing on the merits of her application, including an opportunity to provide oral testimony and other evidence, “without first having to establish prima facie eligibility for the requested relief.” In other words, the case is widely viewed as re-affirming the right to a hearing, even if the asylum claim, as articulated by the applicant, is legally insufficient.

In civil litigation, there is something called “failure to state a claim.” Judges routinely dismiss lawsuits if they determine that a litigant’s claim–even if taken as true–does not entitled the litigant to relief. In our adversarial system, this makes sense. Why waste a court’s time (or the jury’s time) adjudicating the facts of a case if those facts do not entitle the claimant to any relief? And why not do the same thing for asylum applicants?

The main objection is that many asylum applicants are unrepresented, and do not know how to articulate their claims effectively. Only in the course of testimony might an applicant’s claim become apparent (and that is especially true in a case like E-F-H-L-, where there is a complicated “particular social group” analysis). Most Immigration Court hearings are fairly truncated affairs to begin with, and so further curtailing an applicant’s ability to present his case makes it even more likely that overworked judges will take the easy route and dismiss an asylum claim before the applicant is able to fully develop his case. The result, of course, will be that legitimate asylum seekers are denied protection.

So it is concerning that Mr. Sessions has vacated E-F-H-L-. But what comes next is not yet clear. The case has been returned to the Immigration Court for further decision-making, and as I read the case, it seems unlikely that the Judge or the BIA would need to rule on E-F-H-L-‘s right to a full hearing. According to the AG’s decision, E-F-H-L- married a U.S. citizen and withdrew his asylum claim. If that is true, there is little reason to think we will hear anything more about this particular case.

The problem, though, is that the AG presumably vacated E-F-H-L- for a reason. I expect the reason is that he wants to create a new standard (in a different alien’s case) for adjudicating asylum claims. What this standard will be, we do not yet know, but given Mr. Sessions’s jaundiced view of asylum seekers, I’m not feeling optimistic. Whatever he does, Mr. Sessions is limited by the statute and by the courts, and so hopefully, it will not be as bad as we fear.

The second case I want to discuss is Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2018). Mr. Sessions has certified that BIA case to himself and requested new briefs (legal arguments) from the parties and from amici (interested organizations). The question Mr. Sessions wants briefed is this:

Whether, and under what circumstances, being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable “particular social group” for purposes of an application for asylum or withholding of removal.

We don’t know, but presumably the goal here is to block asylum seekers who fear harm from “private criminal activity.” This might, for example, block people fleeing harm from gangs in Central America, or victims of domestic violence. It potentially affects other types of asylum claims as well.

The main problem is that Mr. Sessions has asked for briefing on a question that is vague. He has not given us the facts of the case, thus making it difficult to write an effective brief, since cases are fact specific. He even tried to hide the name of the attorney representing A-B-; perhaps in an effort to block advocates from learning more about the case.

This is not how due process works, and I imagine that whatever decision the AG issues in A-B- will be vulnerable to review by the federal appellate courts, which tend to look askance at such blatant (and amateurish) violations of due process.

That the Attorney General of the United States would engage in such obvious procedural misfeasance is very concerning. Since we don’t know what the AG is really asking for, his request for amici briefs is completely disingenuous. Indeed, even if you favor limiting the scope of asylum, you should be concerned when our country’s top law enforcement officer demonstrates such contempt for the rule of law.

Where the AG is heading with all this, we shall see. The widespread belief among advocates is that in anticipation of DACA and TPS ending, Mr. Sessions is planning to roll back protections for certain asylum seekers, specifically people facing harm from gangs and also victims of domestic violence. But he could also be targeting LGBT asylum seekers who fear community (as opposed to government) persecution, victims of female genital mutilation, and victims of terrorist groups, among others.

Finally, it’s difficult not to see the irony here. For years, advocates for asylum seekers have been litigating to expand protections for a wider range of persecuted individuals, particular women, who often face harm not contemplated by the people (mostly white men) who came up with the definition of “refugee” after World War II. However, by pursuing litigation—rather than legislation—we have left ourselves vulnerable to a restrictionist Administration that now seeks to contract that definition.

Don’t get me wrong—I certainly don’t blame advocates for our current woes; we tried and failed legislatively at least once. But I do hope that if the pendulum swings back, and the public mood becomes more favorable, we will try again to create a refugee law that is more in-tune with the types of harm individuals face today. Until then, we are stuck litigating our clients’ cases in an uncertain environment, against an Attorney General who has little interest in playing by the rules.

Continue reading

158 Comments

Your Affirmative Asylum Case Was Denied. Now What? (Part 2: Immigration Court and Beyond)

by Jason Dzubow

This is part 2 of a posting about what happens if the Asylum Office denies your affirmative application. Read part 1 here.

The view from the Judge’s seat in Immigration Court.

If the Asylum Office denies your asylum case and you are no longer “in status,” you will be referred to an Immigration Court. When you get the denial (which they politely call a Referral), it will contain a short letter with a (usually) boilerplate explanation about why the case was not granted. Along with the letter, you will receive a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), which explains why the U.S. government believes it can deport you. If you have dependent family members, each of them should also receive an NTA (assuming they are all out of status).

The NTA contains allegations and charges. The allegations usually begin, “(1) You are not a citizen or national of the United States; (2) You are a citizen and national of [your country]; (3) You entered the United States on [date and place],” and then they state why you are removable. Often, the alien is removable because she remained in the United States longer than permitted. Other times, the alien entered the U.S. unlawfully (without inspection) or fraudulently (using a fake passport, for example). Some people are removable due to criminal convictions or other immigration violations. Read the NTA and make sure all of the allegations are correct.

The NTA also contains one or more charges. The charges indicate the section of the law (the Immigration and Nationality Act or INA) that the government can use to deport you. One common charge is under INA § 237(a)(1)(B), where the person is removable for having “remained in the United States for a time longer then permitted.” Other charges could relate to an unlawful or fraudulent entry, or to a criminal conviction.

Finally, the NTA will tell you where to go to Immigration Court. Usually, these days, the NTA does not tell you when to go to court. Instead, it says, “TBD,” which means “To Be Determined.” If your court date is TBD, you will receive a notice in the mail with the date of your first hearing. It is important to keep your address updated with the Immigration Court. Use form EOIR-33, and don’t forget to send an extra copy to the DHS Office of the Chief Counsel (the prosecutor).

Also, you can call the Court phone system to check the status of your case and learn whether you have an upcoming hearing. The phone number is 800-898-7180. It is a computer; not a person. Once it answers, follow the instructions and enter your Alien number. After the computer spells your name and you confirm, you can push 1 for your next court date. I recommend you call once a week, just in case you don’t receive the written notice (if you miss your court date, the judge will likely order you deported).

The wait time for the first court date depends on the court and the judge—it could take a few weeks or a few months (or sometimes longer).

Once you are scheduled for court, you will be assigned a judge. The 800-number will tell you the name of your judge. You can learn more about your judge at TRAC Immigration (information is not available for newer judges).

The first hearing is called a Master Calendar Hearing (“MCH”). Many people attend that hearing, and you have to wait your turn. When it is your turn, if you have a lawyer, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) will take “pleadings.” This is when you (through your attorney) admit or deny the allegations and charges in the NTA. After that, the IJ will usually schedule you for an Individual Hearing (also called a Merits Hearing).

If you do not have an attorney with you at the MCH, the IJ will usually give you a continuance to find an attorney. If that happens, you will be scheduled for another MCH. In generally, the IJs really want you to find a lawyer, as it makes their job easier and it significantly increases the likelihood that your case will be approved.

For most referred asylum applicants, the NTA is correct and the person will admit the allegations, concede the charges of removability, and request asylum, Withholding of Removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. However, in some cases, the NTA is not correct. Also, some applicants can seek other relief, such as Cancellation of Removal or adjustment of status based on a familial relationship (or something else). One job of the attorney is to explore what types of relief you might be eligible for.

Also, at the MCH, the IJ will ask you to designate a country of removal. In other words, the IJ wants to know where to send you if you lose your case. For most asylum applicants, we decline to designate a country of removal. The DHS attorney (the prosecutor) will usually designate the country of citizenship.

If you admit the allegations, concede the charge(s), and indicate what relief you are seeking, the IJ will usually schedule you for an Individual Hearing, which is your trial. If you decline to accept the first Individual Hearing date the IJ offers you, or if you take a continuance to find a lawyer, it could prevent you from obtaining a work permit (if you don’t already have one—if you already have a work permit, you do not need to worry about this). If you think this could be a problem in your case, ask your lawyer. If you do not have a lawyer, ask the IJ.

The wait time between the MCH and the Individual Hearing varies by court and by judge. It might be a few days or weeks (for a detained alien), or it could be several years. Supposedly, for asylum cases referred to Court under the new last-in, first-out system, IJs will be scheduling quick Individual Hearing dates. We’ll have to wait and see how that works out.

The Individual Hearing is your trial. It is where you present evidence, and where you and your witnesses testify. At the end of the Individual Hearing, the IJ will usually make a decision—give you asylum, give you some other type of relief, or order you deported. Sometimes, a case requires more than one Individual Hearing. Other times, the IJ will send the decision by mail.

If lose your Individual Hearing, you can appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). If you win your asylum case, DHS can appeal (thankfully, that is not so common). You do not appear in-person for the appeal. Instead, you (or hopefully, your lawyer) will submit a brief, and the BIA will read it and make a decision in your case. Either the BIA will dismiss the appeal, meaning the IJ’s decision was correct and will remain in force, or it can alter or reverse the IJ’s decision. In the latter instance, the case will normally be returned to the IJ to correct the error, and issue a new decision.

An appeal with the BIA typically takes about six months or a year, but it depends on the case.

If you lose at the BIA, you can file a Petition for Review with the appropriate federal appellate court, and if you lose there, you can try to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Very, very few cases make it that far. Also, if you lose at the BIA, whether or not you go to federal court, you are no longer eligible for a work permit based on a pending asylum case, and you can be deported (typically, ICE will not deport someone with a pending federal case, but they have the legal authority to do so unless the federal court issues an order “staying” removal). For the vast majority of aliens, if you lose at the federal appellate level, that is the end of the line.

In my experience, it is a bit easier to win an asylum case in Immigration Court as compared to the Asylum Office. But it is much more difficult to win at the BIA, and even more difficult to win at the federal appellate level.

So this is the basic process that most cases follow if they are denied at the Asylum Office. There are some exceptions and different paths (most notably Motions to Reopen and/or Reconsider), but the majority of applicants will follow this process. If your case is rejected by the Asylum Office, it becomes even more important to have a lawyer assist you. If you can’t afford a lawyer, check this posting for some helpful resources. And remember, losing at the Asylum Office is frustrating and upsetting, but it is by no means the end of the road. Keep fighting, and hopefully, you will have a good result in the end.

Continue reading

362 Comments

The Last-In, First-Out Policy Ain’t Exactly Last-In, First-Out

by Jason Dzubow

It’s been a month since the Asylum Division surprised us by changing from a first-in, first-out (FI-FO) system to a last-in, first-out (LI-FO) system. Under the new system, cases were supposed to be interviewed in the following order of priority: (1) Applications that were scheduled for an interview, but the interview had to be rescheduled at the applicant’s request or the needs of USCIS; (2) Applications that have been pending 21 days or less; and (3) All other pending affirmative asylum applications will be scheduled for interviews starting with newer filings and working back towards older filings. So in other words, the Asylum Offices would interview newly filed cases first; then, if they had extra time, they would interview recently filed cases, working their way backwards through the backlog.

How’s the new LI-FO system working out for you?

We’re now a month in, and the new system is not working exactly as advertised. In our office, for example, we had one client whose case was filed in mid-January 2018. The case was scheduled for an interview earlier this week (we postponed it, as we needed more time to gather evidence). This is about what we expected under the LI-FO system. Another client, whose case was filed in August 2014 was scheduled for an interview in mid-March. The Asylum Office mailed out the interview notice in mid-February, at a time when LI-FO should have been in place. This is not what we were expecting. So what the heck is happening?

It turns out that different Asylum Offices are implementing the LI-FO system in different ways. In a conference call with AILA (the American Immigration Lawyers Association), the Asylum Division informed us that if they do not have enough new cases to fill their schedule, Asylum Offices will interview cases from the backlog. The different offices apparently have the authority to decide which backlogged cases they will choose to interview–old cases, new cases or (I guess) whatever cases they feel like interviewing.

In my local office–Arlington, Virginia–it seems they are interviewing old backlog cases–from 2014. This is contrary to the interview priorities published on January 31, 2018, where the Asylum Division indicated they would work their way backwards through the backlog. It sounds like other Asylum Offices will interview newer backlogged cases–from January 2018 or December 2017, in conformity with the published priorities.

On one level, my preference is that the Asylum Offices interview older cases first, as that seems more fair. But frankly, at this point, my main concern is that they just make a decision and stick with it. It’s bad enough that the Asylum Division announced a surprise change and basically upended the expectations of asylum seekers (and their lawyers). But now, it seems they can’t even follow their own policy.

For advocates, including yours truly, this makes it very difficult to know how to prioritize cases and advise clients. Worse, so much uncertainty makes it even more difficult for asylum seekers to endure the long waits.

Of course, all things pass, and my guess is that we are currently in a period of transition. After the recent change to LI-FO, many attorneys and applicants stopped filing cases. Prior to the change, we were filing bare-bones asylum applications with the intention of finishing the cases later, as the interview date approached. But now, given the (supposed) short time between filing the case and receiving the interview, we have to file completed cases. It takes more time to prepare complete cases, and so we are adjusting how we do things. As a result, fewer cases are being filed and the Asylum Offices have a brief pause to work on backlogged cases.

However, once everyone re-calibrates, I expect the volume of new asylum applications will return to normal, and the Asylum Offices will probably be interviewing new cases, and maybe–if we’re lucky–some cases from the backlog.

Once things settle down, it would be nice to know how the different Asylum Offices plan to interview backlog cases going forward. That way, asylum seekers will have some idea what to expect, and attorneys can advise their clients and manage their caseload. In this sense, the now-defunct Asylum Office Scheduling Bulletin was quite helpful. At least we had some idea about what was going on.

My hope is that the Asylum Offices will choose to provide us with some information about how they are operating. This shouldn’t be all that difficult since each office has its own website. Indeed, whether they are moving through their backlog from oldest to newest or from newest to oldest, I don’t see why they can’t simply tell us where they are.

And while I’m wishing, maybe they can also give other useful information on their website, like the deadlines for filing evidence and the procedures for rescheduling, expediting, and short-listing. Repeat customers like me already know the rules, but pro se applicants don’t, and there is currently no easy way for them to find out. Why not simply post this information on the Asylum Office website for everyone to see?

I know that all this is probably asking for too much. I also know that the Asylum Offices are in a tough spot these days. The Trump Administration is clearly hostile to their mission of protecting bona fide refugees, and anything they do to make the process more user-friendly might come back to bite them. Also, they are potentially on the cusp of a massive surge in new cases, if nothing is done for DACA or TPS recipients. Nevertheless, it would be nice if they could follow the policy that they announced less than a month ago. Or, if they don’t plan to follow the policy, at least keep everyone informed about what they are doing.

Continue reading

289 Comments

Your Affirmative Asylum Case Was Denied. Now What? (Part 1)

by Jason Dzubow

It’s getting more and more difficult to win an asylum case at the Asylum Office. So if your case is not approved, what happens?

For asylum seekers and pizza lovers, this guy is bad news.

For affirmative asylum cases, there are two possible negative outcomes at the Asylum Office level: Denial and Referral.

Denials occur only if you are “in status,” meaning you have some other type of non-immigrant status aside from the pending asylum case. Under the old system (that existed from December 2014 to January 2018), where cases were interviewed in the order received, very few applicants were “in status” by the time of their asylum decision. This is because the cases took years, and very few non-immigrant visas allow an alien to remain lawfully in the U.S. for that long (some exceptions might be the F, J, and H1b visas).

Now, under the new system of last-in, first-out (which is pretty much the same as the pre-December 2014 system), we can expect many newly-filed cases to receive decisions much more quickly, so more applicants will be “in status” when they receive a decision.

If the decision is “yes,” then you receive asylum with all the accompanying benefits. But if the decision is “no” and you are still “in status,” the Asylum Office will give you a letter, called a Notice of Intent to Deny or NOID. The NOID provides a fairly detailed explanation of why your case is being denied, and it gives you 16 days to file a response. In the response, you can include new evidence and explain why the Asylum Office should grant your case.

In the last few years, we have rarely seen NOIDs. However, before December 2014, we would see them now and again. Most often, we saw them when a new client came into the office seeking help with a response. The problem for a busy attorney is that the NOIDs give so little time to respond (16 days) and usually a few days had already passed before the person came for help.

My experience with NOIDs is that the Asylum Office pays attention to the responses. I’d guess that we were successful in getting asylum for about 50% of the people who came to us with such letters. The lesson here is that if you get a NOID, you should do your best to respond. In some cases, it may be impossible to get the Asylum Office to reverse its decision. But as they say, you’ve got to play to win, so if you get a NOID, make sure to respond–you may turn an “intent to deny” into a grant.

If you respond to the NOID and the Asylum Office still decides to deny your application (and assuming your status did not expire in the interim), you will receive a final denial. This means that your case is now over, and you can remain in the United States until your period of lawful stay ends. At that point, you are supposed to leave or seek some other status.

The problem for many asylum seekers, however, is that they do not want to return home (they are asylum seekers, after all). Even though the Asylum Office has denied their case, they want an opportunity to present the case to an Immigration Judge. This makes sense, as many cases denied at the Asylum Office are granted in court. As I’ll discuss in Part 2 (spoiler alert!), asylum cases denied by the Asylum Office are referred to Immigration Court if the applicant is out of status. But if you are denied and you are “in status,” what can you do?

If you received a final denial in your asylum case and you want to go to court, you have to re-apply for asylum at the Asylum Office. The procedure for a second application is different than for a first (check the I-589 instructions). Essentially, you submit a new application directly to the local asylum office, rather than file with a USCIS Service Center (initial asylum applications are sent to the Service Centers).

In theory, for a second application, the Asylum Office will only consider events that occurred after the first application. In other words, they typically will not revisit the first asylum application. Instead, you need to present something new if you want them to grant your case. It’s pretty rare that some new evidence arises between a first and second asylum application, and so the second application is likely to be denied. If the second application is denied, and you are now out of status, your case will be referred to an Immigration Judge, who will look at both your asylum cases.

Given this cumbersome system of having to file a second case, some applicants prefer to file for asylum when their status is expired or close to expiring (but keep in mind the one-year filing deadline). These applicants do not want to leave the U.S., and they prefer to go directly to court if their case is denied. This is certainly a reasonable plan. However, I do think it is important to consider the pros and cons of this approach.

On the plus side, if your denial arrives after your status has expired, you will go from the Asylum Office directly to court, so your case may move a bit faster. Also, of course, you get the chance to present your claim to an Immigration Judge. On the negative side, in order to make this happen, you have to wait until your status has expired (or is close to expiring) before you file your case. Some people may not like this delay. Also, you will not receive a NOID, and so you will only have a vague idea about the reason for the denial (when a case is referred to court, the Asylum Office does not give a detailed explanation of the reasons). Finally, you will not have an opportunity to rebut the Asylum Office’s reasons for denying your case, which means you lose an opportunity to win the case after the NOID is issued. For me, there is no correct answer here. The time frame of when you choose to apply depends on which path you prefer.

Of course, if you are out of status and receive a denial from the Asylum Office, your case will go to an Immigration Judge. But that is a topic for another day. Stay tuned….

Continue reading

391 Comments

Immigration Judges Revolt Against Trump Administration

by Jason Dzubow

In a little noted, but quite extraordinary move, the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) has asked Congress to protect its members (Immigration Judges) from the Trump Administration (their employer). The reason? The Trump Administration is seeking to “evaluate judges’ performance based on numerical measures or production quotas.” According to NAIJ, “If EOIR is successful in tying case completion quotas to judge performance evaluations, it could be the death knell for judicial independence in the Immigration Courts.” “Judges can face potential termination for good faith legal decisions of which their supervisors do not approve.”

EOIR is developing a more efficient way to adjudicate cases (and it comes with a free drink!).

Let’s start with a bit of background. NAIJ is a voluntary organization of United States Immigration Judges. It also is the recognized representative of Immigration Judges for collective bargaining purposes(in other words, the IJs’ union): “Our mission is to promote the independence of Immigration Judges and enhance the professionalism, dignity, and efficiency of the Immigration Courts, which are the trial-level tribunals where removal proceedings initiated by the Department of Homeland Security are conducted.”

According to NAIJ, the most important regulation governing IJ decision-making is 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b). This regulation requires that immigration judges exercise judicial independence. Specifically, “in deciding the individual cases before them, and subject to the applicable governing standards, immigration judges shall exercise their independent judgment and discretion and may take any action consistent with their authorities under the Act and regulations that is appropriate and necessary for the disposition of such cases.” 8 C.F.R. §1 003.10(b).

Up until now, IJs were exempted from quantitative performance evaluations. According to NAIJ, “The basis for this exemption was rooted in the notion that ratings created an inherent risk of actual or perceived influence by supervisors on the work of judges, with the potential of improperly affecting the outcome of cases.”

The Trump Administration is now moving to change the way it evaluates IJs. The main reason for the change is the Administration’s goal of reducing the very-large backlog of cases in Immigration Court (currently, there are about 640,000 pending cases). The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR – the office that administers the nation’s Immigration Courts) recently announced a plan to “transform[] its institutional culture to emphasize the importance of completing cases.” In other words, EOIR will judge its judges based–at least in part–on the number of cases completed.

NAIJ has called this development “alarming” and a threat to judicial independence. Why? Because when judges are forced to complete a certain number of cases, they may be unable to devote the necessary time to each case. As a result, the ability to make proper, well-thought-out decisions will suffer.

This is already a problem in Immigration Court. One IJ famously quipped that his job involved adjudicating death penalty cases in a traffic court setting. And so pushing judges to do more cases in less time will potentially impact the alien’s due process rights, and the integrity of our Immigration Courts.

NAIJ has long believed that the system needs a “structural overhaul” and has advocated for converting the Immigration Courts into Article I courts. Article I refers to the first article in the U.S. Constitution, the section on legislative (i.e., Congressional) powers. The idea is that Congress would establish an independent immigration court, much like it created a tax court and a court of veterans appeal. Such a court would be independent of the Executive Branch–the branch of government tasked with enforcing immigration law (currently, IJs are employees of the Department of Justice, a part of the Executive Branch).

NAIJ recognizes that creating Article I immigration courts “may not be feasible right now,” but it nevertheless urges Congress to protect the nation’s IJs from the new Trump Administration policy:

Congress can… easily and swiftly resolve this problem through a simple amendment to the civil service statute on performance reviews. Recognizing that performance evaluations are antithetical to judicial independence, Congress exempted Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) from performance appraisals and ratings by including them in the list of occupations exempt from performance reviews in 5 U.S.C. § 4301(2)(D). This provision lists ALJs as one of eight categories (A through H) of employees who are excluded from the requirement of performance appraisals and ratings. To provide that same exemption to Immigration Judges, all that would be needed is an amendment to 5 U.S.C. § 4301(2), which would add a new paragraph (I) listing Immigration Judges in that list of exempt employees.

The fact that IJs themselves are concerned about the Administration’s move is worrying. The Immigration Judges I know are conscientious and take their jobs very seriously (in contrast to the Trump Administration, which seems utterly lacking in seriousness). If EOIR is making it more difficult for IJs to do their duty, as they understand it, then something is clearly wrong.

Perhaps the IJs’ concerns are overblown. Maybe EOIR will implement the new case completion standards in a way that does not damage judicial independence or due process. But given the Administration’s track record in general, and the inexperienced acting director appointed to head EOIR, it’s difficult to have much confidence in the new policy. Since Congress is unlikely to act on NAIJ’s request for protection, I suppose we will see soon enough how these changes affect the Immigration Courts.

Finally, in my opinion, EOIR has largely misdiagnosed the problem. While some delay may be caused by IJs kicking the can down the road, or by aliens “playing” the system, most delay is systematic–it is caused by reshuffling Administration priorities, which affect how DHS and DOJ schedule cases. I doubt that imposing numerical quotas on IJs will do much to improve the situation. Other solutions–facilitating pre-trial conferences, reforming the Master Calendar system, better use of technology, imposition of costs, premium processing for certain applicants–might be more effective. Everyone agrees that reducing the backlog is a worthy goal, but case completion requirements are probably not the best way to achieve that end.

Continue reading

296 Comments

The Attorney General’s Jaundiced–and Inaccurate–View of Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

In a speech last week to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (the office that administers the nation’s immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals), Attorney General and living Confederate Civil War monument, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, set out his views on the asylum system, asylum seekers, and immigration attorneys.

Jeff Sessions speaks to an audience at the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

Sad to say, Mr. Sessions described the asylum system in largely negative terms, and said not a word about the benefits that our country derives from offering asylum.

While he views our asylum policy as “generous,” and designed to “protect those who, through no fault of their own, cannot co-exist in their home country no matter where they go because of persecution based on fundamental things like their religion or nationality,” Mr. Sessions feels that our generosity is being “abused” and that “smart attorneys have exploited loopholes in the law, court rulings, and lack of resources to substantially undermine the intent of Congress.”

Mr. Sessions also lambasts “dirty immigration lawyers who are encouraging their otherwise unlawfully present clients to make false claims of asylum providing them with the magic words needed to trigger the credible fear process.”

Indeed, Mr. Sessions believes that our asylum system is “subject to rampant abuse and fraud.” Because the system is “overloaded with fake claims, it cannot deal effectively with just claims.”

First, it’s quite sad that our nation’s chief law enforcement officer would have such a jaundiced view of asylum. The idea that asylum is merely a generous benefit we offer to refugees, and that we receive nothing in return, is simply false. I’ve written about this point before, but it bears repeating. Asylum was created during the Cold War as a tool against the Soviet Union. We offered refuge to people fleeing Communism, and each person who defected to the West served as a testament to our system’s superiority over our adversary.

Now that the Cold War has ended, asylum still serves our strategic interests. It demonstrates our commitment to those who support and work for the values we believe in. It is tangible evidence that America stands with our friends. It gives our allies confidence that we will not let them down when times become tough. It shows that our foundational principles–free speech, religious liberty, equality, rule of law–are not empty words, but are ideals we actually stand behind.

And of course, there are the asylees themselves, who contribute to our country with their energy, enthusiasm, and patriotism, often born of their experience living in places that are not safe, and that are not free.

None of this came up during Mr. Sessions’s talk. Perhaps he does not know how our nation has benefited from the asylum system. Or maybe he doesn’t care. Or–what I suspect–he views asylum seekers as a threat to our security and a challenge to our country’s (Christian and Caucasian) culture.

The shame of it is that Mr. Sessions is demonstrably wrong on several points, and so possibly he reached his conclusions about asylum based on incorrect information.

The most obvious error is his claims that “dirty immigration lawyers… are encouraging their otherwise unlawfully present clients to make false claims of asylum providing them with the magic words needed to trigger the credible fear process.” Aliens who are “unlawfully present” in the U.S. are not subject to the credible fear process. That process is generally reserved for aliens arriving at the border who ask for asylum. Such applicants undergo a credible fear interview, which is an initial evaluation of eligibility for asylum. While this may be a technical point, Mr. Sessions raised the issue in a talk to EOIR, and so his audience presumably understands how the system works. That Mr. Sessions would make such a basic mistake in a speech to people who know better, demonstrates his ignorance of the subject matter (or at least the ignorance of his speech writers), and casts doubt on his over-all understanding of the asylum system.

Mr. Sessions also says that our asylum system is “overloaded with fake claims.” But how does he know this? And what exactly is a fake claim? In recent years, something like 40 to 50% of asylum cases have been granted. Are all those adjudicators being fooled? And what about denied cases? Are they all worthy of denial? There is, of course, anecdotal evidence of fraud—and in his talk, Mr. Sessions cites a few examples of “dirty” attorneys and applicants. But a few anecdotes does not compel a conclusion that the entire system is “subject to rampant abuse and fraud.” I can point to anecdotes as well. I’ve seen cases granted that I suspected were false, but I’ve also seen cases denied that were pretty clearly grant-worthy. While I do think we need to remain vigilant for fraud, I have not seen evidence to support the type of wide-spread fraud referenced by the Attorney General.

Finally, Mr. Sessions opines that “smart attorneys have exploited loopholes in the law, court rulings, and lack of resources to substantially undermine the intent of Congress.” So court rulings undermine the intent of Congress? Any attorney who makes such a statement casts doubt on that lawyer’s competence and devotion to the rule of law, but when the Attorney General says it, we have real cause for concern. Thousands of federal court rulings—including from the U.S. Supreme Court—have interpreted our nation’s immigration laws (and all our other laws too). That is what courts do, and that is how the intent of Congress is interpreted and implemented in real-world situations. Attorneys who rely on court decisions are not “exploit[ing] loopholes in the law,” we are following the law.

These are all pretty basic points, and it strikes me that when it comes to asylum, Mr. Sessions doesn’t get it. He seems not to understand the role of Congress, the courts, and lawyers in the asylum process. And he certainly doesn’t understand the benefits our country receives from the asylum system.

I’ve often said that President Trump’s maliciousness is tempered by his incompetence. With Attorney General Sessions, it is the opposite: His maliciousness is exacerbated by his incompetence. And I fear that asylum seekers–and our country’s devotion to the rule of law–will suffer because of it.

 

Continue reading

131 Comments

Another Open Letter to My Friends at DHS and DOJ: After Joe Arpaio, What Now?

by Jason Dzubow

The Joe Arpaio pardon is an affront to anyone concerned about the rule of law. And this includes the lawyers, judges, and adjudicators I know at the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security.

Soulless Joe from Maricopo’

But before we get to that, we need to talk a bit about “Sheriff Joe.” A brief overview of his career as sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona reveals various misdeeds, including–

abuse of power; misuse of funds; failure to investigate sex crimes; improper clearance of cases; unlawful enforcement of immigration laws; and election law violations. A Federal court monitor was appointed to oversee his office’s operations because of complaints of racial profiling. The U.S. Department of Justice concluded that Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history, and subsequently filed suit against him for unlawful discriminatory police conduct. Arpaio’s office paid more than $146 million in fees, settlements, and court awards.

But all that is not what ultimately led to where we are now. Mr. Arpaio was a defendant in a civil rights lawsuit. The judge ordered him to stop racial profiling, but Mr. Arpaio refused to comply. In a civil contempt proceeding, Mr. Arpaio admitted as much to the Court: “Defendants acknowledge and appreciate that they have violated the Court’s orders and that there are consequences for these violations.” In this particular case, the “consequences” proposed by Mr. Arpaio were for the tax payers of Maricopa County to foot the bill for a victim compensation fund. That didn’t pan out, and Mr. Arpaio was charged with criminal contempt.

He was convicted on July 31, 2017. The presiding judge wrote that Mr. Arpaio had “willfully violated an order of the court” by failing “to ensure his subordinates’ compliance and by directing them to continue to detain persons for whom no criminal charges could be filed.” Sentencing was scheduled for October.

Then last week, on a Friday night in the midst of a hurricane, President Trump issued a pardon for the criminal contempt and any other charges that might arise out of the same litigation. In an explanatory statement, the White House called Mr. Arpaio a “worthy candidate” who “protect[ed] the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration.”

So what does this mean? Of course, it means that Joe Arpaio won’t be going to jail. But on a more fundamental level, what does it mean for the rule of law? And what does it mean for those who enforce the law?

It seems to me that the clear signal sent by this pardon is that violating the law–by racial profiling or other means–is acceptable in order to rid our country of the “scourge” of illegal immigration. The ends justify the means.

Such an approach is antithetical to any society that values law and order, and that opposes tyranny. Those sworn to protect our nation’s laws must hold themselves to the highest standards. It is not for them to decide which laws to follow based on their subjective beliefs about right and wrong. They must follow the law. And when they don’t, they must be held accountable. When regular citizens fail to obey the law, it is anarchy. When law enforcement officers fail to obey the law, it is fascism.

And so the Joe Arpaio pardon is an endorsement of fascism. Whether you think all “illegals” should be rounded up and deported, or whether you think they should all be granted green cards makes no difference to this analysis. Fascism is fascism and law is law.

So what does all this mean for attorneys, judges, adjudicators, and others at DOJ and DHS?

It seems to me that you have a duty to uphold the law, regardless of whether the President is willing to tolerate or even encourage you to violate it in the service of his goals. That’s pretty basic, and we’ve seen examples of government officials following the law even when the President discouraged it (see Jeff Sessions and recusal).

But I think there is something more you can do. You can err on the side of non-citizens. Especially these days, the deck is stacked against aliens seeking immigration benefits. Simple mistakes on forms can lead to severe consequences. Minor criminal convictions can lead to banishment for life. The over-broad terrorism bar treats victims of terror like terrorists. Prosecutorial discretion is gone. The denial rate for asylum cases is on the rise. We are seeing more and more requests for evidence, and the wait time for many immigration benefits is getting longer. Not to mention the travel ban, increased use of detention, the backlog, etc., etc. In other words, the situation on the immigrant-side of the fence ain’t easy.

But if you are an adjudicator or an attorney or a judge with DHS or DOJ, you have some power to mitigate these difficulties. You have some flexibility in your decision-making. You are in a position to blunt some of the worst excesses of the Trump Administration. You can help act as a counter-balance when the President encourages law enforcement to push the boundaries of the law, as he did with the Joe Arpaio pardon.

Immigration and asylum laws are not nearly as harsh as the Trump Administration would have us believe. But the President is trying to use immigration law and procedure in a way that blocks people from coming here, or that deports those who are here. It is up to the people on the front line of that effort to protect the rule of law. Judges, adjudicators, and attorneys have the legal authority to grant cases, and in the face of the Trump Administration’s attack on the rule of law, they should continue to do so. The lives of many immigrants–and our country’s fealty to the rule of law–depend on it.

Continue reading

145 Comments

Translating Documents for Your Asylum Case

by Jason Dzubow

The word “translation” is derived from “trans,” meaning “across” two languages, and “elation,” meaning “to make your lawyer happy.” Or something like that. The point is, if your translations are correct, you are more likely to win your case and so you–and your lawyer–will be happy.

If you think accurate translations are not important, please stay away from my garden.

But many asylum seekers are unable (or unwilling) to pay for professional translations, which can be quite costly. Instead, they do the translations themselves, or they use a friend who speaks “good English” (technically, anyone who claims to speak “good English” does not speak English very well). The problem faced by these non-professionals is that translating documents is not as easy as it looks.

I ran into this problem recently, when a keen-eyed DHS attorney discovered that my client’s translations were incorrect. The client had submitted several translated documents when he applied for asylum at the Asylum Office (using a different lawyer). These documents included a newspaper article, a police report, and several witness letters. The quality of the translations was poor, and so we asked the client to obtain better translations. Unfortunately, the new translator embellished some of the translations. Instead of translating the documents literally, he tried to include what the writer meant (or what the translator believed the writer meant). This problem is all too common. Sometimes, I catch it, and other times, I don’t. In this particular case, the DHS attorney caught the inconsistency, which–to state the obvious–is not great for our case.

Poor translations can cause real problems for asylum cases. I have at least one case where an inaccurate translation resulted in the case being denied by the Asylum Office and referred to Immigration Court (where it remains pending 3+ years later–ugh).

So how do you ensure that your translations are correct? And what happens if you can’t afford a professional translator?

First, any document that is not in English must be translated into English. For each such document, you must submit a copy of the original document (in the foreign language), an English translation, and a certificate of translation (for an example certificate of translation, see the Immigration Court Practice Manual, Appendix H).

Second, the translation should be accurate. This seems like a no-brainer, but in my experience, it is not. Here, “accurate” means that the translator should–as much as possible–literally change each and every word of the original document into the equivalent English word. Some words are not easy to translate from one language to the next. Other words have symbolic, cultural or idiomatic meanings that may differ from their literal meaning (the word “jihad” is a good example). In that case, translate the word literally, and maybe include a footnote indicating the meaning or cultural significance of the word. The footnote should clearly indicate that it is not part of the translation (for example, it could say, “Translator’s note:” and then include the explanation). Other times, the original document is vague or unclear. In that case, the translator should again literally translate the words, but can include an explanatory note. Sometimes, documents contain illegible words. For them, the translator can include a bracketed statement indicating that the text is [illegible].

Third, while I think it is not required, I strongly prefer that the translated text look similar to the original (or sometime like a mirror image of the original, if it is a right-to-left language like Arabic). So bold or underlined words in the original should be bold or underlined in English. If the original text has different paragraphs, the English should follow a similar format. If some words in the original are centered, or shifted to one side or to a corner of the page, the translation should do the same.

Fourth, every word of the document should be translated. For documents where that is not possible (like a newspaper where you are only interested in using one article on the page), the translator should clearly indicate what portions of the document are being translated. In this case, I prefer to highlight the original document to make clear which parts are being translated. Also, for news articles, it is important to include (in the original language and in English), the name of the newspaper, the date, the title of the article, and the author, if any. Certain documents contain a lot of unnecessary boilerplate verbiage (I’m thinking of you, Salvadoran birth certificates), and so a summary translation might be more appropriate. If you use a summary translation, you need to clearly indicate that it is a summary, not a literal translation. Whether all Judges and Asylum Officers will accept summary translations, I do not know, but we use them now and again, and we have not had any problems.

Finally, countries sometimes use different calendars and even different clocks. In this situation, I think the best practice is to translate the date or time literally, and then include an explanatory note (for example, in the Jewish calendar, today is the second day of the month of Elul in the year 5777, and so if a Hebrew document contained that date, the English translation would look like this: “2 Elul 5777 [August 24, 2017]”). Some translators include only the date in our system (and not “2 Elul 5777”), and I have never had a Judge or Asylum Officer reject that, but I still think the better practice is the literal translation + explanatory note.

A related issue is letters from people who do not speak English, including the asylum applicants themselves. If a person does not speak English, but submits an English letter or affidavit, there must be a “certificate of interpretation stating that the affidavit or declaration has been read to the person in a language that the person understands and that he or she understood it before signing.” See Immigration Court Practice Manual, p. 48. “The certificate must also state that the interpreter is competent to translate the language of the document, and that the interpretation was true and accurate to the best of the interpreter’s abilities.” Id.

Lastly, many asylum seekers speak English and can translate documents themselves. This is fine. However, a person should not sign a certificate of translation for her own case. So if you translate your own documents, find a friend who speaks both languages to review the documents and sign the certificate of translation.

Accurate translations can enhance credibility and help you win your case. So either find (and pay) a competent translator or – if you do it yourself or use a friend – take the time to ensure that the translations are accurate and complete. Otherwise, documents that might help your case could end up doing more harm than good.

Continue reading

163 Comments

President Trump’s 101-Year Deportation Plan

by Jason Dzubow

Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong had their five-year plans. Nikita Khrushchev had his seven-year plan. And now President Trump has a 101-year plan. That’s how long it will take to deport the country’s 11 million undocumented residents if current trends continue.

Happy Birthday! Now, get the hell out of my country!

The most recent statistics on case completions in Immigration Court show that the Trump Administration has issued an average of 8,996 removal (deportation) orders per month between February and June 2017 (and 11,000,000 divided by 8,996 cases/month = 1,222.8 months, or 101.9 years). That’s up from 6,913 during the same period last year, but still well-below the peak period during the early days of the Obama Administration, when courts were issuing 13,500 removal orders each month.

Of course, the Trump Administration has indicated that it wants to ramp up deportations, and to that end, the Executive Office for Immigration Review or EOIR–the office that oversees the nation’s Immigration Courts–plans to hire more Immigration Judges (“IJs”). Indeed, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, the Attorney General (at least for now) announced that EOIR would hire 50 more judges this year and 75 next year.

Assuming EOIR can find 125 new IJs, and also assuming that no currently-serving judges retire (a big assumption given that something like 50% of our country’s IJs are eligible to retire), then EOIR will go from 250 IJs to 375. So instead of 101 years to deport the nation’s 11 million undocumented residents, it will only take 68 years (assuming that no new people enter the U.S. illegally or overstay their visas, and assuming my math is correct–more big assumptions).

But frankly, I’m doubtful that 68 years–or even 101 years–is realistic. It’s partly that more people are entering the population of “illegals” all the time, and so even as the government chips away at the 11,000,000 figure, more people are joining that club, so to speak. Worse, from the federal government’s point of view, there is not enough of a national consensus to deport so many people, and there is significant legal resistance to Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda.

In addition to all this, there is the Trump Administration’s modus operandi, which is best characterized as malevolence tempered by incompetence. One statistic buried in the recent deportation numbers illustrates this point. In March 2017, judges issued 10,110 removal orders. A few months later, in June, judges issued 8,919 removal orders.

This means that the number of deportation orders dropped by 1,191 or about 11.8%. How can this be? In a word: Incompetence (I suppose if I wanted to be more generous—which I don’t—I could say, Inexperience). The Trump Administration has no idea how to run the government and their failure in the immigration realm is but one example.

There are at least a couple ways the Administration’s incompetence has manifested itself at EOIR.

One is in the distribution of judges. It makes sense to send IJs where they are needed. But that’s not exactly what is happening. Maybe it’s just opening night jitters for the new leadership at EOIR. Maybe they’ll find their feet and get organized. But so far, it seems EOIR is sending judges to the border, where they are underutilized. While this may have the appearance of action (which may be good enough for this Administration), the effect—as revealed in the statistical data—is that fewer people are actually being deported.

As I wrote previously, the new Acting Director of EOIR has essentially no management experience, and it’s still unclear whether he is receiving the support he needs, or whether his leadership team has the institutional memory to navigate the EOIR bureaucracy. Perhaps this is part of the reason for the inefficient use of judicial resources.

Another reason may be that shifting judges around is not as easy as moving pieces on a chess board. The IJs have families, homes, and ties to their communities. Not to mention a union to protect them (or try to protect them) from management. And it doesn’t help that many Immigration Courts are located in places that you wouldn’t really want to live, if you had a choice. So getting judges to where you need them, and keeping them there for long enough to make a difference, is not so easy.

A second way the Trump Administration has sabotaged itself is related to prosecutorial discretion or PD. In the pre-Trump era, DHS attorneys (the “prosecutors” in Immigration Court) had discretion to administratively close cases that were not a priority. This allowed DHS to focus on people who they wanted to deport: Criminals, human rights abusers, people perceived as a threat to national security. In other words, “Bad Hombres.” Now, PD is essentially gone. By the end of the Obama Administration, 2,400 cases per month were being closed through PD. Since President Trump came to office, the average is less than 100 PD cases per month. The result was predictable: DHS can’t prioritize cases and IJs are having a harder time managing their dockets. In essence, if everyone is a deportation priority, no one is a deportation priority.

Perhaps the Trump Administration hopes to “fix” these problems by making it easier to deport people. The Administration has floated the idea of reducing due process protections for non-citizens. Specifically, they are considering expanding the use of expedited removal, which is a way to bypass Immigration Courts for certain aliens who have been in the U.S. for less than 90 days. But most of the 11 million undocumented immigrants have been here much longer than that, and so they would not be affected. Also, expansion of expedited removal would presumably trigger legal challenges, which may make it difficult to implement.

Another “fix” is to prevent people from coming here in the first place. Build the wall. Deny visas to people overseas. Scare potential immigrants so they stay away. Illegally turn away asylum seekers at the border. Certainly, all this will reduce the number of people coming to America. But the cost will be high. Foreign tourists, students, and business people add many billions to our economy. Foreign scholars, scientists, artists, and other immigrants contribute to our country’s strength. Whether the U.S. is willing to forfeit the benefits of the global economy in order to restrict some people from coming or staying here unlawfully, I do not know. But the forces driving migration are powerful, and so I have real doubts that Mr. Trump’s efforts will have more than a marginal impact, especially over the long run. And even if he could stop the flow entirely, it still leaves 11 million people who are already here.

There is an obvious alternative to Mr. Trump’s plan. Instead of wasting billions of dollars, harming our economy, and ripping millions of families apart, why not move towards a broad legalization for those who are here? Focus on deporting criminals and other “bad hombres,” and leave hard-working immigrants in peace. Sadly, this is not the path we are on. And so, sometime in 2118, perhaps our country will finally say adieu to its last undocumented resident.

Continue reading

214 Comments

We’re All in Atlanta Now

by Jason Dzubow

Atlanta, Georgia is generally considered to have the most difficult Immigration Court in the country. Now, the Trump Administration has tapped attorneys from the Atlanta Office of the Chief Counsel (the “prosecutors” in Immigration Court) to take charge of the Immigration Courts and the “prosecutors” offices for the entire United States. A third Atlanta attorney has been appointed to a key policy-making position at the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).

If you’re feeling down about Georgia exports, here’s something to love.

Before we get to those attorneys, let’s first talk about Atlanta. The average grant rate for asylum cases across the U.S. is just under 50%. The asylum grant rate at the Atlanta Immigration Court is less than 9%. Also, immigrant advocates have frequently complained about due process issues and the treatment of litigants in the Atlanta court.

It’s true that the Office of the Chief Counsel (“OCC”) and the Immigration Court are independent of each other, but I think we can safely glean a few things about the Atlanta OCC from what we know of the Court.

For one, since Immigration Judges will usually grant cases where the parties agree on relief, it seems likely that OCC attorneys in Atlanta rarely determine that a case should be approved for asylum. Of course, we do not know about the quality of the asylum cases in Atlanta—maybe they are unusually weak (a real possibility since sophisticated litigants will avoid Atlanta due to its low grant rate). But it would be strange indeed if almost no cases there meet the relatively low threshold required for asylum. The fact that the OCC is not stipulating to asylum on occasion indicates that they are taking a very hard line against such cases (this contrasts with many other jurisdictions, where the local OCCs regularly conclude that applicants qualify for asylum). The job of OCC attorneys is not merely to deport as many people as possible; they are supposed to do justice. This means agreeing to relief where it is appropriate. The low grant rate in Atlanta may indicate that OCC lawyers there are prioritizing “winning” over doing justice, and ideology above the law—all worrying signs as these attorneys move into national leadership positions.

Second, whether the asylum cases in Atlanta are strong or weak, I suspect that the high denial rate there colors the view of the OCC attorneys. If those attorneys believe that over 90% of asylum seekers are unworthy of relief—either because they do not meet the requirements for asylum or because they are lying about their claims—it seems likely that these attorneys will develop a jaundiced view of such cases, and maybe of immigrants in general.

Finally, there exists at least one instance of the Atlanta OCC taking an overly-aggressive position in a case involving alleged racial profiling by ICE (if OCC attorneys are the prosecutors, ICE officers are the police). In that case, an Immigration Judge in Atlanta ordered the OCC to produce an ICE agent accused of racial profiling. The OCC refused to produce the agent, and ultimately, the Judge ruled that the agents had engaged in “egregious” racial profiling and the OCC attorneys had committed “willful misconduct” by refusing to bring the agents to court. While the three OCC attorneys at issue here had left the Atlanta office by the time of this case, the OCC’s position again points to an agency willing to put “winning” ahead of justice.

With this background in mind, let’s turn to the alumnus of the Atlanta OCC who will be taking charge of our immigration system.

Tracy Short – ICE Principal Legal Advisor: Tracy Short is the new Principal Legal Advisor for ICE. In that capacity, he “oversees the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, the largest legal program within the Department of Homeland Security, comprised of more than 1,100 attorneys and 300 support professionals throughout the United States.” These are the attorneys who serve as “prosecutors” in Immigration Court, among their other tasks. According to his ICE biography, “From 2009 to 2015, Mr. Short served as the Deputy Chief Counsel in the ICE Atlanta Office of Chief Counsel.” Mr. Short also served on the committee staff for Congressman Bob Goodlatte, the staunch anti-immigration representative from Virginia.

While Mr. Short has impressive litigation experience, he has almost no management experience (as Deputy Chief Counsel, he might have supervised a few dozen people, at most). But now, under the Trump Administration, he is overseeing more than 1,400 lawyers and staff. Like his fellow veterans of the Atlanta OCC, I suspect he was chosen more for his ideological views than for his management background.

James McHenry – Acting Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”): In a move characterized as “unusual” by retired Immigration Judge and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt, the Attorney General has appointed James McHenry as the new Acting Director of EOIR, the office that oversees the nation’s immigration court system. Judge Schmidt notes that, “While Judge McHenry has stellar academic and professional credentials, and is an ‘EOIR vet,’ having served as a Judicial Law Clerk/Attorney Adviser in the Buffalo and Baltimore Immigration Courts, it is unusual in my experience for the acting head of EOIR to come from outside the ranks of current or former members of the Senior Executive Service, since it is a major executive job within the DOJ.” In other words, while Judge McHenry has had significant legal experience, he has very little leadership experience, especially at EOIR.

Indeed, Judge Schmidt’s characterization of Judge McHenry as an “EOIR vet” seems overly generous. He served as a Judicial Law Clerk, which is basically a one or two year gig for new law school graduates working as an assistant to Immigration Judges (I myself was a JLC back in the prediluvian era) and he has a few months experience as an Administrative Law Judge for the Office of Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, an office at EOIR that reviews certain employment cases involving immigrants.

Like Mr. Short, Judge McHenry worked for the Atlanta OCC. He served as an Assistant Chief Counsel for ICE in that office from 2005 to 2010.

Whether Judge McHenry’s “acting” role as Director of EOIR will become permanent, we do not know. But I agree with Judge Schmidt that it is highly unusual for a person with such limited management experience to be picked to head our country’s immigration court system, with hundreds of judges and support personnel to oversee.

Gene Hamilton – Counsel to DHS Secretary: Gene Hamilton was appointed as counsel to DHS Secretary John Kelly. Along with Stephen Miller, he was apparently a key architect of the Trump Administration’s travel ban against people from several majority-Muslim countries. He also served as a trial attorney at the Atlanta OCC in about 2014 and 2015, though I could not verify his length of service there. In addition, Mr. Hamilton served on the staff of Senator  Jefferson Beauregard Sessions before he was appointed Attorney General. Mr. Sessions, of course, is well known for his regressive views on immigration, civil rights, and just about everything else.

So there you have it. Three veterans of the Atlanta OCC who together will be exercising significant control over our country’s immigration system. Given their backgrounds and experience (or lack thereof), it’s difficult to be optimistic about how that system will fare under their watch.

Continue reading

131 Comments

Return of the Travel Ban

by Jason Dzubow

Days after President Trump took office, he moved to implement one of his campaign promises: To bar Muslims, refugees, and others from coming to the United States. Courts were not amused, and blocked significant portions of the President’s executive orders (thanks largely to the brilliant work of lawyers at the ACLU and at several states attorneys offices). The President tried again, with a new, more limited executive order (“EO”). The new EO was also severely limited by the courts.

You’d think a bunch of people in burkas would be a bit more sympathetic to Muslims.

But now, the Supreme Court has spoken, and the EO is back, at least in part. So what’s the story? Here is a nice summary (with some comments by yours truly) of where we are now, courtesy of Aaron Reichlin-Melnick at the American Immigration Council (and if you want to do something to help resist the travel ban, consider donating to the AIC–they are a terrific organization that does yeoman’s work in all areas of the immigration field):

“[The] the Court ruled that the government can only enforce the travel ban against foreign nationals who do not have ‘a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.’

“What this means is that individuals from the six countries [Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen] will be permitted to enter the United States if they have a ‘close familial relationship’ with someone already here or if they have a ‘formal, documented’ relationship with an American entity formed ‘in the ordinary course’ of business. However, the Court said that such relationships cannot be established for the purpose of avoiding the travel ban. The government will likely begin applying the travel ban in the limited fashion permitted by the Supreme Court on June 29, 2017.

“Who is likely to be allowed to enter the United States?

  • Individuals who have valid immigrant or non-immigrant visas issued on or before June 26, 2017: These individuals are not included in the travel ban [However, it seems to me that the decision leaves open the possibility of a new EO where such people are banned, and so I am concerned about that as well].
  • Individuals with visas coming to live or visit with family members: The Court’s order is clear that individuals who ‘wish [] to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member’ have close familial relationships. The Court used both a spouse and a mother-in-law as examples of qualifying relationships, but it is unclear whether more distant relatives would qualify.
  • Students who have been admitted to a U.S. university, workers who have accepted offers of employment with U.S. companies, and lecturers invited to address an American audience: The Court provided these three examples of individuals who have credible claims of a bona fide relationship to an American entity.
  • Other types of business travelers: It is unclear whether individuals with employment-based visas that do not require a petitioning employer will be able to demonstrate the requisite relationship with a U.S. entity.
  • Refugees: Most refugees processed overseas have family or other connections to the United States including with refugee resettlement agencies [I read this a bit more pessimistically–I do not know whether a pre-existing relationship with a resettlement agency is enough to avoid the ban]. The Court ruled that such individuals may not be excluded even if the 50,000 [person] cap on refugees has been reached or exceeded.

“Who may have trouble entering the United States?

  • Individuals who form bona fide relationships with individuals or entities in the United States after June 26, 2017: The Court’s decision is not clear on whether it is prospective or retrospective only. Individuals who form such relationships to avoid the travel ban are barred from entering.
  • Tourists: Nationals of the designated countries who are not planning to visit family members in the United States and who are coming for other reasons (including sight-seeing) may be barred from entering [I also read this more pessimistically–it seems to me that anyone from a banned country who does not merit an exception as discussed in the decision will be denied a visa, including people coming to the U.S. for business, pleasure or medical treatment].”

As I read the decision and the EO, asylum seekers who are already in the United States, as well as people who have asylum or have a green card based on asylum, are not blocked from traveling and re-entering the country. They are also not blocked from receiving additional immigration benefits (like asylum, a green card, a work permit, travel documents or naturalization). However, the proof will be in the implementation–how the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) interprets and applies the Supreme Court decision in actual, real-life cases.

In that regard, I agree with Justice Thomas, who “fear[s] that the Court’s remedy will prove unworkable” and will invite a “flood of litigation.” Who is a qualifying relative for purposes of this decision? Must that person be a U.S. citizen? Or can the person be a resident or an asylee (as in a refugee/asylee following-to-join petition, form I-730)? Could the qualifying relative simply be someone here on a work visa or a visitor visa? What if the person is here illegally? And what is a business relationship, and how do we know whether it is bona fide or created solely for the purpose of subverting the EO?

In short, while the Supreme Court decision is reasonably clear for some aliens, it leaves large gray areas that will require interpretation, meaning more litigation. Such litigation is expensive and time consuming, and so the Court’s decision is likely to leave some people who might qualify to come here stranded, depending on how DHS implements the EO, and depending on whether they can get legal help. Overall, that’s not a great situation to be in.

Finally, yesterday’s decision perhaps telegraphs where the Justices will come down on the merits of the EO when they look at the case this fall (the Court’s decision relates only to whether to stop implementation of the EO pending a decision on the merits). Three Justices (Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch) seem likely to allow a broader version of the ban to go forward. Given what we see in this decision, it may be that the other Justices are more skeptical of the ban and will limited it in some ways (and with luck, if the Trump Administration fears that the Court will limit the ban, it may just declare victory and allow the EO to expire, as originally intended).

All this remains to be seen, but for now, anyone from a banned country should pay attention to how the EO is implemented in the coming days, and perhaps avoid traveling outside the U.S. until we know more.

Continue reading

143 Comments

The BIA on Firm Resettlement

by Jason Dzubow

One of my professional goals in life is to get a published decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). It won’t be easy–the Board publishes only about one case out of every 1,000 (I wrote about this problem in a blog post called, The Unbearable Lightness of BIA-ing). If the Board could publish more cases, it would provide better guidance to the nation’s Immigration Judges and would probably result in more consistency across the country. Alas, it seems unlikely that the BIA will take my suggestion anytime soon.

I did have a recent case that I thought might stand a chance of publication. As far as I know, it was an issue of first impression (meaning that there are no other published cases discussing the same topic). It is also a fairly common issue, so some guidance from the Board would have been appropriate. The bad news is that my dreams of publishing glory have been shattered, as the Board issued an unpublished decision in my case. But the good news is, we won. And perhaps our unpublished victory might be helpful to others who are in a similar situation.

Unlike published BIA decisions, unpublished decisions are not binding on Immigration Judges. However, they are “persuasive,” meaning that if you can find an unpublished case on point, you can submit it to the Judge, who will hopefully consider it. The Executive Office for Immigration Review (the office that administers the BIA and the Immigration Courts) does not release unpublished decisions, but fortunately, there is a sort-of underground network led by the legendary Dan Kowalski, where attorneys can submit their unpublished decisions and make them available to others.

My case centered on a legal construct called “firm resettlement.” An alien who has been “firmly resettled” in a third country is ineligible for asylum. See INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(2)(vi). My client’s husband had been a high-ranking member of his country’s government. When the government turned against him, he and the rest of the family fled to a neighboring country, which granted the family asylum–hence, they were firmly resettled in a third country. As a result of being firmly resettled, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied asylum, but granted Withholding of Removal as to the home country, and ordered my client and her children deported to the third country.

During the pendency of the BIA appeal, the home government assassinated my client’s husband while he was residing in the third country. After the assassination, DHS agreed that the case should be remanded to the IJ.

On remand, we presented evidence that my client could not return to the third country, as she no longer had any status there. We also presented evidence that it was no longer safe for her in the third country.

DHS argued that even if she could not return to the third country, she had been firmly resettled there, and that she was thus barred from asylum. The lawyer described firm resettlement as a door. Once you pass through it, you are forever barred from asylum. When you read the case law (and the primary case on this point is Matter of A-G-G-, 25 I&N Dec. 486 (BIA 2011)), the government’s argument is not unreasonable. Though, in fact, while Matter of A-G-G- lays out a framework for the firm resettlement analysis, it does not cover the situation in our case, where the country of firm resettlement somehow becomes unsafe.

Ultimately, the BIA accepted one of several arguments we presented. The Board held:

The intent of the firm resettlement bar is to disqualify asylum applicants who have previously found another country of refuge, not another country in which he or she faces a danger of persecution…. Given respondent’s situation with regard to [the third country], we conclude that, even assuming she otherwise would be viewed as having firmly resettled in that country, she is not barred from asylum.

Id. (emphasis in original). Thus, the Board went beyond the analysis of Matter of A-G-G- and looked to the intent of the firm resettlement bar. The intent, the BIA says, was only to bar “aliens who had already found shelter and begun new lives in other countries.” Id. (emphasis in original) (citing Rosenberg v. Yee Chien Woo, 402 U.S. 49, 56 (1971)).

It seems to me that the Board’s emphasis on the intent of the bar is significant. If you only read the firm resettlement bar (INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(2)(vi)) and Matter of A-G-G-, you could reasonably conclude–like the DHS attorney and the IJ in my case–that once a person is firmly resettled, she is forever barred from asylum. But that is not the conclusion the Board has now reached.

I am glad for the result and for my clients, but I am disappointed that the BIA chose not to publish this decision. The issue that my clients faced–where the country of resettlement is unsafe–is not uncommon. A number of my clients have faced similar situations, and I suspect that they are not unique. A published decision would have helped clarify matters and provided better guidance to our country’s Immigration Judges.

Maybe I am asking for too much. Maybe I should just be happy with what we got. Maybe I am being a big jerk for looking this gift horse in the mouth. But I can’t help but think that if the BIA would publish more decisions–especially in cases where there is no existing precedent–our Immigration Court system would be more consistent and more efficient. And so while I am thankful that we received a good decision from the Board in this particular case, I am also thinking about how much more good the Board could do if it made a concerted effort to fulfill its role as “the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws,” and if it would publish more cases.

Continue reading

80 Comments

“Us Versus Them” in Immigration Court

by Jason Dzubow

There’s a quote attributed to legendary DC-lawyer Jake Stein that has helped define my practice as an attorney: “I’ve never litigated a case where I wasn’t better friends with my opposing counsel at the end of the case than at the beginning.”

Though it may be satisfying, beating up opposing counsel probably violates the Rules of Professional Conduct.

His philosophy may be Old School and–in these days, where being nice to someone you disagree with has become all too rare–almost radical, but I’ve taken it to heart. I try to maintain a congenial and trusting relationship with the DHS attorneys who sit across from me in court. As a result, I believe my clients are better off—and so am I.

The former President of the DC Bar, Tim Webster, touched on this issue last year in an article about the “Balkanization of Lawyers.” What he meant was that we lawyers tend to fall into opposing camps, Us versus Them, and never the twain shall meet. In Immigration World, that means attorneys who represent immigrants and asylum seekers, on the one hand, and government attorneys, on the other.

Mr. Webster laments the division of our profession in this manner, and points out that it is often bad for our clients, who benefit when lawyers are able to “work cooperatively with opposing counsel towards a consensual resolution” of their cases. Perhaps Mr. Webster’s observation is more applicable to civil cases, where a negotiated monetary settlement is the norm, but I think it also applies in Immigration Court. When we have a cooperative relationship with DHS, we are often able to reach better resolutions for our clients. DHS attorneys are more likely to give us the benefit of the doubt, and more likely to stipulate to part (or sometimes all) of a case.

Mr. Webster also argues that the idea of us-versus-them stands in opposition to our core values as attorneys. Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, we are required to be honest and fair–to the client, to other attorneys, and to the tribunal (and also to other people we encounter in the course of our work). When we view opposing counsel or Judges as “the enemy,” it becomes easier to justify behavior that risks violating our obligations under the Rules, which can harm our clients (and land us in hot water).

Unlike perhaps some areas of law, immigration law has a strong ideological component. Many of the attorneys who represent immigrants do so because they believe in human rights and they want to keep families together. For such attorneys—and I include myself among them—our work represents an expression of our moral and/or religious values. In other words, it’s more than just a job; it’s a mission.

Does this make it harder for us to work cooperatively with opposing counsel (DHS)? Is it more urgent that we do so? For me, the answer to both these questions is yes. When our clients’ lives and futures are on the line, it can be very difficult to maintain a cordial relationship with a government attorney who is fighting to have that client deported. But even in the hardest-fought case, there is value in maintaining lines of communication. For example, even where the DHS attorney will not compromise and is fighting all-out for removal, there still exists the possibility of stipulating to evidence and witnesses, and of a post-order stay of removal. Severing the connection does not serve the client (though it may satisfy the ego), and certainly won’t help future clients, and so to me, there is little value in burning bridges, even when I believe DHS’s position is unjust.

All that said, there is no doubt that we will often disagree with our opposing counsel, and that we will fight as hard as we can for our clients. This is also a duty under the Rules of Professional Conduct (zealous advocacy), and for many of us, it is an expression of our deeply held belief in Justice.

With the ascension of the Trump Administration, and its more aggressive approach towards non-citizens, I believe it is more important than ever for us lawyers to keep good relationships with our DHS counterparts. While some government attorneys are glad to be “unleashed” and to step-up deportation efforts, many others are uncomfortable with the Administration’s scorched-Earth strategy. These DHS attorneys (and I suspect they are the majority) take seriously their obligation to do justice; not simply to remove everyone that ICE can get their hands on.

While the environment has become more difficult, I plan to continue my Old School approach. It works for me, it has worked for my clients, and I think it is particularly crucial in the current atmosphere. We lawyers–the immigration bar and DHS–should continue to lead by example, and continue to maintain the high ethical standards that our profession sets for us. In this way, we can help serve as a counter-balance to our country’s leaders, whose divisive, ends-justify-the-means approach has no use for the basic principles of morality or comity that have long served our profession and our democracy.

Continue reading

115 Comments

Fred Korematsu and the Forgotten Legacy of Lies

by Jason Dzubow

Seventy-five years ago this week, Fred Korematsu was arrested on a street corner in San Leandro, California. His crime: Failing to report to an internment center for Japanese immigrants and Americans of Japanese decent who were detained en masse once the United States entered World War II.

Fred Korematsu and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

After three months in pre-trial detention (he wasn’t released even though he posted bail), Mr. Korematsu was convicted in federal court for violating the military relocation order, sentenced to five months’ probation, and sent to an internment camp where he lived in a horse stall. He later said, “Jail was better than this.” Over 100,000 Japanese Americans were confined to such camps during the course of the war because the government feared they were disloyal (German- and Italian-Americans were not subject to such treatment).

The American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) represented Mr. Korematsu at trial and in his appeals. Eventually, the case reached the United States Supreme Court, which issued a 6-3 decision upholding the conviction as justified due to the circumstances of “direst emergency and peril.”

Over time, the Supreme Court’s decision—and the internment of Japanese Americans—came to be viewed as a great injustice. President Ford issued a proclamation apologizing for the internment. A commission established by President Carter concluded that the decision to remove those of Japanese ancestry to prison camps occurred because of “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.” And President Reagan signed a bill providing compensation to surviving internment camp residents. In 1998, President Clinton awarded Mr. Korematsu the Presidential Medal of Freedom, stating:

In the long history of our country’s constant search for justice, some names of ordinary citizens stand for millions of souls: Plessy, Brown, Parks… to that distinguished list, today we add the name of Fred Korematsu.

Mr. Korematsu himself remained active in civil rights until his death in 2005. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, he spoke out about how the United States government should not let the same thing happen to people of Middle-Eastern descent as happened to Japanese Americans during WWII. He also filed amicus (friend of the court) briefs in several cases involving lengthy detention of suspects at Guantanamo Bay.

With the Trump Administration’s attempted crackdown on Muslim immigrants, Korematsu v. United States is again in the news. A few (misguided) individuals have suggested that Korematsu provides precedent for the President’s crackdown on Muslims (though it seems highly doubtful that any modern court would rely on Korematsu for precedent). Others view the case as a cautionary tale: We should not abandon our ideals in the face of a perceived threat.

But there is another lesson from Korematsu; a lesson that has received surprisingly little attention in our “post truth” age: The U.S. government, including the Solicitor General who argued the case, Charles Fahy, knowingly lied to the Supreme Court about the alleged threat posed by Japanese Americans during the war, and those lies very likely influenced the outcome of the case.

The government’s mendacity came to light in the early 1980’s when Peter Irons, a law professor writing a book about the internment camps, discovered that the Solicitor General had deliberately suppressed reports from the FBI and military intelligence which concluded that Japanese-American citizens posed no security risk. The documents revealed that the military had lied to the Supreme Court, and that government lawyers had willingly made false arguments.

As a result of these discoveries, a District Court in San Francisco formally vacated Mr. Korematsu’s conviction on November 10, 1983–more than 40 years after he was found guilty. Mr. Korematsu told the Judge, “I would like to see the government admit that they were wrong and do something about it so this will never happen again to any American citizen of any race, creed, or color.” He continued, “If anyone should do any pardoning, I should be the one pardoning the government for what they did to the Japanese-American people.”

In 2011, the Acting Solicitor General stated:

By the time the [case of] Fred Korematsu reached the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General had learned of a key intelligence report that undermined the rationale behind the internment. The Ringle Report, from the Office of Naval Intelligence, found that only a small percentage of Japanese Americans posed a potential security threat, and that the most dangerous were already known or in custody. But the Solicitor General did not inform the Court of the report, despite warnings from Department of Justice attorneys that failing to alert the Court “might approximate the suppression of evidence.” Instead, he argued that it was impossible to segregate loyal Japanese Americans from disloyal ones. Nor did he inform the Court that a key set of allegations used to justify the internment, that Japanese Americans were using radio transmitters to communicate with enemy submarines off the West Coast, had been discredited by the FBI and FCC. And to make matters worse, he relied on gross generalizations about Japanese Americans, such as that they were disloyal and motivated by “racial solidarity.”

[The District Judge that overturned Mr. Korematsu’s conviction] thought it unlikely that the Supreme Court would have ruled the same way had the Solicitor General exhibited complete candor.

And so, the U.S. government recognized that its lies did real damage. Over 100,000 Japanese Americans were uprooted from their homes and lives, confined to camps, and excluded from American society. In addition, our country lost the benefit of those citizens’ contributions—to our nation and to the war effort.

Yet here we are again. Refugees—particularly Muslim refugees—are painted as a threat to our security. The President says they are a “Trojan Horse” for terrorists. Precious little evidence supports these claims. And much of that evidence has been discredited. Indeed, to me, it sounds a lot like “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership,” with an emphasis on the latter.

Which all leads to the final point: Will the current Administration follow the lead of Solicitor General Fahy? If the evidence does not support its assertions about Muslim immigrants, will it suppress the truth? And how will judges respond? For now, it seems that our courts remain the only level-headed branch of government, and the only real bulwark against the bigotry and falsehoods peddled by our President. When the government ignores the evidence and makes policy decisions based on fantasy, it’s not just Muslims and immigrants who will suffer. Fred Korematsu is gone, but let’s hope his legacy is never forgotten.

Learn more about Fred Korematsu and his on-going story at the Korematsu Institute.

Continue reading

66 Comments