Pleading the Fifth

by Jason Dzubow

It’s rare that one of my clients or witnesses needs to assert the protection of the Fifth Amendment, but it happened the other day in court.

The case involved an Eritrean who fled persecution in his country and made his way to the U.S. with the help of smugglers.  His journey cost more than $10,000.00, paid for by various relatives.  One of the relatives came to court as a witness.  During cross examination of this witness, the trial attorney asked about sending money to my client to pay the smugglers.  Not only is this a crime, but it is also a deportable offense (the witness is a lawful permanent resident). 

The Fifth Amendment: It's not just for baseball players, Solyndra executives, and comedians.

I objected to the question on the basis that the witness was unrepresented, and if he testified about paying for a smuggler, his testimony could be used against him in a criminal prosecution (not to mention a removal proceeding).  After my objection, the IJ instructed the witness about his rights under the Fifth Amendment and the witness chose to invoke his right against self incrimination.  Probably a smart move.

The situation raises a few issues.  For one, what is the attorney’s obligation to protect the witness?  I certainly could have allowed the witness to answer DHS’s question.  The witness did not know that he might face prosecution for helping his friend enter the U.S. illegally; nor did he know about his Fifth Amendment right.  In this case, there was no conflict between my client’s interests and the witness’s, and so objecting was clearly the right thing to do.  But what if the witness’s testimony would have helped my client, but harmed the witness? Perhaps I would be obliged to allow the witness to testify in order to help my client (I have a duty to my client, but not to the witness).  I suppose this points to the need for witnesses to have their own attorneys in court, but as a practical matter, I imagine that is pretty unlikely.  

Another issue is the Immigration Judge’s obligation in this situation.  A quick review of the Immigration Judge Benchbook does not reveal any helpful guidance.  The Ethics  and Professional Guidelines are little better, though they do advise the IJ to “act in a professional manner towards all… witnesses.”  Based on this, one could argue that the IJ should inform a witness when he is entering dangerous territory.  To the extent that IJs are not obligated to notify witnesses of potentially self incriminating testimony, it seems to me that EOIR should create some guidance on this point to protect witnesses in Immigration Court.     

Finally, does the DHS attorney have any obligation to the alien?  The only other time a Fifth Amendment issue came up in one of my cases, I was questioning a witness and the DHS attorney pointed out that the witness’s answer might incriminate him (and no, I was not purposely out to get the witness; I didn’t realize that my question had potentially dangerous consequences).  DHS attorneys represent the government and should act justly.  However, sometimes there are good reasons to question a witness about issues that might incriminate him.  DHS attorneys need to balance their obligation to do justice with the need for information in the case.  I would argue that DHS attorneys should warn witnesses when they are asking questions that might incriminate them, but my guess is, most DHS attorneys would disagree with me.

As for my case, the Respondent was granted relief under the Torture Convention (a result we were not thrilled with, but it beats a denial) and the witness did not incriminate himself.  I guess that is mostly a happy ending.

Continue reading

2 Comments

EOIR to Stop Wasting DOS’s Time

by Jason Dzubow

The Executive Office for Immigration Review has published new proposed regulations that would amend the requirement that all asylum applications filed with the Immigration Court also be filed with the Department of State.  Until now, when an alien files a defensive asylum application (form I-589) in court, he was required to file a second copy for the State Department.  The Immigration Judge would forward the application to the State Department, which could comment on the application.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reviewing asylum applications for EOIR.

The reality was that DOS almost never had any comment, so the second I-589 disappeared into a bureaucratic black hole.  Immigration Judges found the process so useless, that some would not even take a second copy of the I-589, as they had no intention of forwarding it to DOS (in violation of the existing regulations).  I observed this at a recent Master Calendar Hearing, where the IJ specifically instructed a lawyer not to file a second copy of the I-589, since the State Department never had any comments and the IJ had no intention of sending them a copy of the form.

I suppose the fact that IJs ignored the existing regulation is a good argument in favor of modifying the rule (though ordinarily when Immigration Judges ignore regulations, bad things happen).

Under the new rule, Immigration Judges have discretion to forward the I-589 forms to DOS, and should do so only “to ascertain whether DOS has information relevant to the applicant’s eligibility for asylum.”  Supposedly, this new rule will increase efficiency by limiting the number of inquiries to DOS.

The big problem with the new regulation (as with the old regulation) is that it puts the IJ in the position of the prosecutor, rather than in the position of a neutral decision-maker.  It seems to me, a better rule would be to allow the DHS Trial Attorney to submit the I-589 to DOS if she deems the State Department’s opinion useful.  Since the Trial Attorney is the person tasked with litigating the case, she is the best person to determine what evidence is necessary.  She is also (theoretically) familiar with the case and is thus best positioned to know if DOS might have relevant information about the asylum seeker. 

In an effort to be a glass-is-half-full kind of guy, I suppose the new regulation is an improvement over the current system.  The better approach, however, is to let DHS handle the investigation and leave the decision-making to the Immigration Judge.

Continue reading

The BIA’s Ridiculous Deadline

by Jason Dzubow

beeI once heard about an Admiral during WWII who described carrier warfare as hours of boredom punctuated by moments of terror.  That is a bit like how I think of appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

First, you file your appeal.  Nothing happens for a couple months.

Then, the transcript arrives.  You theoretically have 21 days to write the brief.  However, by the time you receive the transcript, a few days have passed.  Plus, you have to make sure that the appeal brief is received by the Board no later than day 21, so you have to mail it early.  Thus, you actually have about 15 or 16 days to write the brief.  Of course, the transcript always arrives when you are about to leave for vacation or when you have three individual hearings to prepare for, so the 15 or 16 days is not enough.  You can ask for one extension (which seems to be granted as a matter of course), so you can realistically gain a total of about 36 or 37 days to prepare the brief.

After the brief is filed, you will then wait one to two years for a decision.

So my question is: Since these appeals take so long anyway, why are we given such little time to prepare a brief?  

Perhaps limiting the time for the alien to submit a brief is a way of stopping her from dragging out her final removal date.  But given the one to two year (or more) time frame for these appeals, is another few weeks going to make much difference?

There is, of course, a downside to limiting the time for the brief: Given most attorneys’ busy schedules, it is difficult to do our best work when we have insufficient time to write the brief, particularly if we are unlucky enough to have the transcript and briefing schedule arrive at a bad time (which always seems to happen).

The obvious solution is to extend the time for filing the brief.  Federal appeals courts (at least where I practice) generally give about 45 days to file the brief.  Lower courts usually give at least 30 days.  All these courts grant extensions where warranted.  At a minimum, the BIA should initially grant six weeks to file the brief; at least this would save lawyers the time and uncertainty of having to ask for a three-week extension.

With more time, we can expect better briefs–not only from the private bar, but also from DHS.  I imagine this would result in better BIA decisions.  There is really no good reason for such short deadlines with the BIA.  The Board should consider extending the time for filing briefs.

Continue reading

4 Comments

Closing Argument

by Jason Dzubow

Last week, I won an asylum case thanks to a good closing argument.  The lead respondent was a woman from Ethiopia.  She had been arrested a few times in her country, and faced persecution in prison.  In many ways, it was a standard-issue case–the type of case that cynical judges and DHS attorneys tend not to believe.  And the case was not going well—the DHS attorney had raised some legitimate questions about the plausibility of the woman’s story.  After her testimony, the DHS attorney and I spoke during a brief recess.  We both agreed that the IJ was leaning heavily towards a denial based on implausibilities. 

Closing arguments are not always my strong suit, but that day, I gave an argument that did the trick.  The IJ listened to what I said, and he granted the case.  

Throughout my career, I’ve been fairly indifferent to closing arguments.  At least one judge I practice before does not allow them, and I’ve generally felt that closing arguments rarely make a difference.  Over the years, though, I’ve come to believe that a good closing can persuade the judge, and there are a few techniques that I’ve found to be effective.

You don't have to be a super hero to give a good closing argument.

First and foremost, a good closing argument should address the weakest parts of your case—it is crucial not to ignore or hide from the weak points of the case.  Rather, these points must be confronted directly.  As you listen to the DHS attorney’s (and the IJ’s) questions, you should gain a pretty good understanding of what they perceive as the weak points in the case.  You need to mitigate these weaknesses and explain to the IJ why they should not sink the case.  For example, in my case last week, the IJ questioned the alien about how her husband could work for the government and, at the same time, join an opposition political party.  Using record evidence (in this instance, the State Department Country Report), I argued that several well-known opposition leaders worked for the Ethiopian government.  My client also misspoke during cross exam and gave the wrong date for her husband’s arrest.  I mentioned her error and pointed out that she gave the correct date during direct examination.  I also noted that she quickly corrected her mistake on cross, and that this was the only inconsistency in her testimony.  Of course, to effectively address the weak parts of your case, you need to pay close attention to the IJ and the DHS attorney.  You generally cannot prepare the closing in advance; it will be shaped by the testimony and questions at trial.

Second, a good closing should remind the IJ about the legal standard and show how your client meets that standard.  In my case, the client was unable to get some evidence that the IJ wanted to see.  I reminded the IJ that, under the REAL ID Act, my client was only required to obtain evidence that was “reasonably available.”  I then explained why the missing evidence was unavailable. 

Finally, you should discuss the strong points of your case.  This is probably the most obvious thing to do during closing, but it is also—in my opinion—the least important.  Usually, the strong points of the case are apparent.  Also, asylum cases that are denied tend to be denied for lack of credibility.  Findings of incredibility are based on the weak parts of the case.  Once a client is found not credible, the strong parts of the case become irrelevant (who cares if you say you were tortured in prison if the IJ has found your testimony incredible).  That said, it is a good idea to remind the IJ about the strongest parts of your client’s case.

Well, those are some thoughts on closing arguments.  I still believe that in most cases, they do not make much difference.  But after last week, I am convinced that sometimes they can turn a denial into a grant.

Continue reading

New BIA Decision Will Harm Asylum Seekers

by Jason Dzubow

I periodically complain about the ongoing failure of the Board of Immigration Appeals to provide guidance to Immigration Judges.  But the Board’s latest decision makes me think I should be more careful what I wish for.

In Matter of E-R-M-F- & A-S-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 580 (BIA 2011), the BIA held that, until an arrested alien is formally placed into removal proceedings by service of a Notice to Appear, immigration officers are not required to inform the alien of his right to counsel (at the alien’s own expense) or that his statements might be used against him.  Statements made by the alien after the arrest but before the alien is told of his right to counsel may be used against him in immigration court.

Not surprisingly, this decision has been roundly condemned by immigration advocates.  The American Immigration Counsel had this to say:

For decades, immigrants placed under arrest have been entitled to these critical advisals. Like “Miranda” warnings for criminal suspects, such notifications help to ensure that statements made during questioning are not the product of coercion. As a result of last week’s ruling, noncitizens under arrest will now be even more vulnerable to pressure from interrogating officers, and immigration judges will face greater difficulty determining whether statements made during questioning were truly voluntary.

Since this decision is bad for all noncitizens, it is–ipso facto–bad for asylum seekers and people with asylum.  In some ways, though, this decision might impact asylum seekers more severely than other immigrants.

I'd hate to see what the BIA would say about this interrogation.

For one thing, asylum cases often depend on an alien’s credibility.  If an alien makes a statement to an immigration officer, that statement might later be used to impeach the alien’s testimony.  I’ve seen this happen to some of my clients.  They speak to an ICE officer (sometimes through another detained alien acting as an interpreter) and say something that is inaccurate and that might later be construed as an inconsistency.  I’m not talking here about lies to gain asylum; I’m talking about non-material points, like whether the alien entered the U.S. in the day time or the night time, or what countries she traveled through to get to the United States.  Such inconsistencies are almost certainly honest mistakes, but since non-material inconsistencies can support an adverse credibility finding, such statements can destroy the asylum claim for a legitimate asylum seeker.  The E-R-M-F- decision will only exacerbate this problem.

Further, asylum seekers tend to be vulnerable people.  Many have been through traumas, often at the hands of officials from their home governments, and they have a particular fear of law enforcement officers.  Such people are susceptible to manipulation and will sometimes make false statements in order to please (or placate) an interrogating officer.  For these reasons, asylum seekers–more than most–need to be protected when they interact with immigration officers.  Again, the Board’s new decision is the exact opposite of what these people need.

My fear is that ICE officers will take advantage of the new ruling to question aliens before they serve the Notice to Appear, and that such statements will be unfairly used to damage asylum seekers’ credibility.  My hope is that the Ninth Circuit (which will likely review this matter) will see fit to overturn the Board’s decision.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Afghan Asylum Seekers in Limbo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading

2 Comments

Negative Judicial Metaphors Harm Immigrants

by Jason Dzubow

A recent article in the Fordham Law Review posits that negative metaphors used by judges to describe immigrants contribute to negative public perceptions of immigrants and lead to adverse judicial decisions. 

Before now, I never metaphor that I didn't like.

In Alien Language: Immigration Metaphors and the Jurisprudence of Otherness, Keith Cunningham-Parmeter discusses different metaphors used in judicial decisions related to immigration.  The most common metaphors can be classified into three categories: (1) Immigrants are aliens; (2) Immigrants are a flood; and (3) Immigrants are invaders.  Each of these metaphors carries negative associations–for example, floods cause us to drown; invaders try to kill us.  Employing these metaphors, writes Mr. Cunningham-Parmeter, affects how we think about immigrants, which in turn affects judicial decisions.

One set of figures cited in the article struck me as particularly noteworthy—In examining 4,200 federal cases related to immigration, Mr. Cunningham-Parmeter found that the phrase most commonly used to describe immigrants was “illegal alien:”

“[I]llegal alien” was “by far the most common term, appearing in 69% of opinions (2905 cases).  No other term appeared in more than 10% of opinions, except “undocumented alien,” which accounted for 16% of the results in 670 cases.  

It seems likely that the overwhelming use of negative metaphors for immigrants would impact how judges think about people who are in the U.S. illegally.  This, of course, could result in more adverse decisions.  

To counter these negative metaphors, Mr. Cunningham-Parmeter proposes some positive metaphors; words that connote entrepreneurial economic migrants (i.e., people with the get-up-and-go necessary to cross borders and start new, productive lives):

[M]igrants are neither criminals nor invaders, but instead people who cross international borders in order to survive.  As such, the economic sanctuary metaphor brings focus to the human consequence of globalization.

I certainly appreciate the effort to de-stigmatize immigrants (and in writing this blog post, I find myself avoiding the term “alien,” a term of art defined in the INA, but also a metaphor with negative connotations).  In the end, though, I am skeptical that we can replace existing metaphors with something more benign.  There is a tribal aspect to these metaphors that is deeply ingrained.  We do tend to view outsiders as “invaders” and as a threat.  Maybe that is just the way of human nature.  Or, hopefully, I am wrong, and Mr. Cunningham-Parmeter’s article will help plant a seed that will lead to a more positive—and constructive—view of people who immigrate to the United States.

Continue reading

The BIA on Firm Resettlement

by Jason Dzubow

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) an alien who is “firmly resettled” in a third country is ineligible for asylum in the United States. See INA § 208(b)(2)(A)(vi); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.15.

If Angelina Jolie shows up, it probably means you are not firmly resettled.

It’s been more than 20 years since the BIA issued an opinion on firm resettlement, and during that period, the various federal circuit courts have weighed in, creating a patchwork of inconsistent law across the U.S.  In a new decision, Matter of A-G-G-, 25 I&N Dec. 486 (BIA May 12, 2011), the Board has issued important guidance concerning firm resettlement.

The BIA held that the Department of Homeland Security has the initial burden to make a prima facie showing of an offer of firm resettlement by presenting direct evidence of an alien’s ability to stay indefinitely in a third country.  When direct evidence is unavailable, indirect evidence may be used if it has a sufficient level of clarity and force to establish that the alien is able to permanently reside in the country.  An asylum applicant can rebut this evidence by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that such an offer has not been made or that the applicant’s circumstances would render him or her ineligible for such an offer of permanent residence.

The failure to apply for permanent residence where it is available to an alien does not rebut evidence of firm resettlement.  Thus, evidence that permanent resident status is available to the alien under the law of the third country may be sufficient to make a prima facie showing of an offer of firm resettlement, and a determination that the alien is firmly resettled is not contingent on whether the alien applies for permanent status in the third country.

It makes sense that the initial burden of proving firm resettlement is on the DHS–in most cases, an alien subject to the firm resettlement bar will have lived for a time in a third country.  In this case, the alien, A-G-G-, was a Mauritanian national who lived in Senegal for eight years.  He married a Senegalese citizen.  The fact that the alien resided in Senegal alerted DHS to the possibility of a firm resettlement bar, and they submitted evidence that A-G-G- could live permanently in Senegal.  A-G-G- then had an opportunity to rebut that evidence.  The fact that he chose not to apply for permanent status in Senegal was not sufficient–in and of itself–to avoid a permanent resettlement bar.  However, if there was some reason that A-G-G- could not live in Senegal, he could have presented that evidence and perhaps avoided the bar.

Matter of A-G-G- seems to strike a fair balance between protecting an asylum seeker’s ability to obtain asylum and preserving the government’s interest in barring people who have permanent residency elsewhere.



Continue reading

BIA Makes It Easier to Deport 14 Year Olds

by Jason Dzubow

In a recent decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that service of a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) on an alien is effective, so long as the alien is at least 14 years old. See Matter of Cubor-Cruz, 25 I&N Dec. 470 (BIA April 29, 2011).  

Another child served with a Notice to Appear.

It may seem idiotic to expect a child still in the throws of puberty to respond to an NTA, but to be fair, the BIA was just following orders:

Section 239(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) (2006), provides that the Notice to Appear is properly served if it is “given in person to the alien (or if personal service is not practicable, through service by mail to the alien or to the alien’s counsel of record, if any).” See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5a(c)(1) (2010) (providing for personal service of notice).  However, the regulations state that if the alien is a minor under 14 years of age, “service shall be made upon the person with whom the . . . minor resides; whenever possible, service shall also be made on the near relative, guardian, committee, or friend.” 8 C.F.R. § 103.5a(c)(2)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 236.2(a) (2010).

So I suppose it really isn’t the BIA’s fault that the regulations allow for service of an NTA on a middle school student.  There are a few things that bother me about this decision.

For one, the regulation is ridiculous.  How can a 14 year old be expected to understand and respond to an NTA?  This is another example highlighting the need for court-appointed advocates in cases involving minors or people who are incapable of representing themselves.   

Second, why did the Board bother to publish this decision?  It does nothing except re-state the regulation.  Given that the BIA publishes decisions so rarely (only about 1 case in 1,000 is published), it is disappointing that they would “waste” a published decision on a case that does nothing to clarify the law or set a precedent.

Finally, why didn’t the Board take this opportunity to criticize the regulation and/or call for court appointed advocates in cases involving minor children?  The BIA likes to tell us that it has no authority to rule on the validity of the regulations that govern it.  Maybe so, but it does have the expertise and the moral authority to criticize those regulations where they are unfair.  There is a long tradition in the American legal system of courts criticizing laws, even when they cannot invalidate those laws.  Sometimes, a well-written criticism helps change an unjust law.  Also, there is a tradition of courts asserting their authority even when the other branches of government question that authority (think Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison). 

In Matter of Cubor-Cruz, the BIA missed an opportunity to criticize an unjust regulation.  It also missed a chance to assert its (moral) authority in order to bring about a positive change in the law. 

Continue reading

Are Well-Fed Judges More Likely to Grant Asylum?

by Jason Dzubow

A recent study of parole judges in Israel demonstrates that the judges tend to issue more favorable decisions on a full stomach.  The study, by Shai Danzuger of Ben Gurion University, examines 1,112 parole board hearings in Israeli prisons.  In the chart below, the vertical axis represents the proportion of cases where the judges granted parole.  The horizontal axis shows the order that cases were heard throughout the day.  The dotted lines represent the points where the judges went away for a morning snack and a lunch break.

The study controls for various factors, such as gender, ethnicity, and type of crime, and its conclusion–that the judges’ decisions are strongly influenced by whether they’ve eaten–seems pretty convincing.  My question is: Does this study have any applicability to Immigration Judges or Asylum Officers?

One reason to think that the study is not applicable to IJ’s and Asylum Officers is that the Israeli judges ruled on 14 to 35 parole cases per day.  While IJs in Master Calendar Hearings often rule on more than 35 cases per day, such cases are rarely final decision where the alien is contesting removal.  Most final decisions occur during Individual Hearings, and IJs generally do not adjudicate more than four or five individual hearings per day (especially when those hearings involve asylum applications, which tend to take more time than other types of immigration cases).  Asylum Officers also have a much lower daily caseload than the Israeli judges.  Thus, the challenges faced by the Israeli parole judges are quite different from those faced by Asylum Officers and IJs in the United States.

On the other hand, the study does point to the problem of fatigue as a factor in decision-making, and it makes sense that fatigue would affect IJs and Asylum Officers, all of whom are overworked and under pressure.  How–or whether–that fatigue affects asylum cases is not known.      

Studies of asylum cases have shown that the results can be arbitrary (see, for example, this posting about the article Refugee Roulette) and that “unobservable factors,” such as gender and education, may affect asylum decisions.  However, as far as I know, there has not been a study of how fatigue affects decision-making.  There is, however, significant evidence that IJs (and presumably Asylum Officers) are stressed out by the heavy case load and the difficult types of cases. 

What, then, is the solution?  I suppose the easy answer is to hire more IJs and more Asylum Officers.  EOIR has been expanding the number of judges, but given our current budgetary woes and the vast number of cases, it is doubtful that a handful of new IJs will make a great difference in the overall stress level.  Another solution (which I don’t love) is to simplify the system and eliminate some layers of review (for example, combine the Immigration Courts and the Asylum Offices into one body, which would handle all cases at the trial level).  A final thought is to encourage the BIA to issue more decisions (I have written about this before in the cleverly titled (if I do say so myself) blog post–The Unbearable Lightness of BIA-ing).  This would create more certainty and regularity in the system.  It certainly won’t solve the problem, but it does seem like a reasonably easy way to improve efficiency.

Fatigue, stress, and overwork are all factors that negatively affect decion-makers in the asylum system.  The more we can do to alleviate those problems, the better decisions we can expect.  In the mean time, I recommend that you bring the IJ a nice sandwich before your trial.  It couldn’t hurt.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Chilean Revolutionary “Demands” Political Asylum – Gets Bupkis

by Jason Dzubow

I’ve long had a soft spot in my heart for Worker’s World newspaper, with its tag line: “Workers and Oppressed Peoples of the World Unite!”  I can’t say I always agreed with the paper, but is does sometimes highlight issues not covered by more mainstream news outlets.  

Victor Toro: Revenge is a dish best served Chile... er, cold.

One recent story caught my attention.  Last December, the paper had an article about Chilean “revolutionary” Victor Toro.  Mr. Toro claims to be a leader and founder of the Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR – the Revolutionary Left Movement) of Chile.  He was tortured in Chile because of his political opposition to General Pinochet’s dictatorship.  Mr. Toro has also been a well-known activist for immigrant’s rights in New York City for many years. 

According to Worker’s World, Mr. Toro, who is undocumented, was “racially profiled” by immigration agents and arrested in 2007.  He was then placed into removal proceedings where he “demanded” political asylum.

First, it strikes me as a bit ironic that a Chilean revolutionary–someone who opposed the U.S.-backed coup that violently overthrew elected president Salvador Allende in 1973–would seek asylum in the United States, the same country that helped orchestrate the coup. 

Second, it seems strange to “demand” asylum.  Maybe it is a technical point, but asylum is a discretionary form of relief; this means that the U.S. government can deny asylum in the exercise of its discretion (say, for example, if the asylum seeker is not a person of good moral character).  Given the discretionary nature of the relief, no one can “demand” asylum.  They have to ask for it.  Nicely.

Earlier this month, the Immigration Judge denied asylum.  Mr. Toro’s attorney issued a strongly-worded statement condemning the decision and vowing to appeal.  From what I can glean from the statement, the IJ denied relief principally because Mr. Toro did not file for asylum within one year of arriving in the U.S. and because country conditions in Chile had changed, making it safe for him to return. 

I have never worked on an asylum case from Chile, but given the current country conditions (good), I am not surprised that Mr. Toro’s case was denied.  What seems a real shame is that, had Mr. Toro applied in a timely manner, he might well have qualified for “humanitarian asylum.”  Humanitarian asylum is available to people who have suffered severe persecution in their country, and is available even if country conditions have improved.  Basically, it is a recognition that some people should not have to go back to a country where they suffered severe persecution.  

Mr. Toro was tortured severely in Chile, but apparently his failure to timely file for asylum prevented him from obtaining humanitarian asylum.  Thus–once again–an arbitrary filing deadline has caused real harm.  Frankly, I have my doubts that Mr. Toro will suffer persecution if he returns to Chile.  But considering that he suffered torture in his country previously, he should have received humanitarian asylum.   

Continue reading

Liu v. Holder: Frivolous Asylum Applications

by Jason Dzubow

The Ninth Circuit recently examined “the distinction between an applicant for asylum whose testimony lacks credibility and one who has ‘deliberately fabricated’ material aspects of her application. See Liu v. Holder, No. 08-72849 (9th Cir. Feb. 23, 2011).  The Court held:

“[A]n asylum application is frivolous if any of its material elements is deliberately fabricated.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20. If found to have “knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum,” an applicant will be “permanently ineligible for any benefits under [the Immigration and Nationality Act],” including asylum relief. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6). Given these harsh consequences, the distinctions between the requirements for an adverse credibility determination and a frivolousness finding are of critical importance.

The Court ultimately concluded that whether an alien submitted a frivolous asylum application is a “distinct question requiring a separate analysis.”

In examining Ms. Liu’s case, the Court found that the Board’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence.  However, “a finding of frivolousness does not flow automatically from an adverse credibility determination.”  The Court noted four substantive requirements that distinguish an adverse credibility finding from a finding of frivolousness:

First, an asylum application may be deemed frivolous only if it contains a deliberate fabrication, and the applicant has thus perpetrated a fraud on the court.  Second, a frivolousness determination requires a finding that a “material element” of the claim was fabricated, whereas an adverse credibility determination may be supported by an inconsistency or apparent falsehood that merely relates to a material element of the claim.  Third, although the “applicant for relief from removal has the burden of demonstrating that he or she meets all of the requirements” for such relief, the burden shifts to the government to prove the applicant has filed a frivolous application.  Fourth, a frivolousness finding requires a stronger evidentiary showing than an adverse credibility finding: frivolousness must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, whereas an adverse credibility finding must be supported only by substantial evidence.

Besides the substantive requirements, there are also procedural requirements for a finding of frivolousness.  In Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 151 (BIA 2007), the Board set forth four procedural requirements for a frivolous finding: 

(1) Notice to the alien of the consequences of filing a frivolous application; (2) A specific finding by the Immigration Judge or the Board that the alien knowingly filed a frivolous application; (3) Sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that a material element of the asylum application was deliberately fabricated; and (4) An indication that the alien has been afforded sufficient opportunity to account for any discrepancies or implausible aspects of the claim.

In other words, it’s not easy to have your asylum case found frivolous.  This is as it as it should be, given the harsh consequences for a frivolous finding.

Continue reading

2 Comments

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

by Jason Dzubow

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading

2 Comments

In Defense of Government Bureaucrats

by Jason Dzubow

As an immigration attorney, I have plenty of contact with “government bureaucrats:” USCIS and ICE officers, DHS attorneys, CBP officials, and Immigration Judges, to name a few.  Some of them can be annoying (why can’t they always just do what I want?).  A few are downright mean or incompetent.  But the current attack against government workers gives me pause.

Do you love your country? Thank a bureaucrat.
Do you love your country? Thank a bureaucrat.

John Boehner recently dismissed concerns that proposed budget cuts would cost tens or hundreds of thousands of government jobs: “So be it,” he said.  And in Wisconsin, the Republican governor has used the budget crisis as an excuse to bust government employee unions.  It’s all part of a philosophy of government that stretches back to President Reagan, who famous told us that “government is the problem.”

My view is that the current climate of disrespect for government workers is dangerous to our democracy and reflects a naiveté bordering on stupidity.

Ours is a nation of laws, and those laws are enforced by government workers.  Whether their responsibility is to enforce immigration laws, protect the environment, educate our children or ensure that our food is safe, government workers implement the law.  They are not always perfect, to be sure, but generally they have helped perpetuate a democratic system based on the rule of law.  Thus, the attacks against them are dangerous to our democracy.

Also, these attacks are incredibly naive.  Anyone who has spent time in a country that does not have an established, (relatively) corruption-free bureaucracy understands how crucial it is to have honest civil servants.  If you want to know why the United States is different from any number of third world countries, look no further than the people who enforce our laws.  The idea that attacking them and devaluing their service is somehow patriotic is ridiculous.

While I can’t say I always love the government workers I interact with, I recognize that they are an indispensible part of our system of government.  The recent attacks against “government bureaucrats” are not only wrong-headed, they are downright unpatriotic.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Mubarak Is Not Eligible for Asylum

by Jason Dzubow
When your photo is crossed out AND burned, you know it's time to go.

After 30 years of autocratic rule, the people of Egypt have forced President Hosni Mubarak to resign.  There has been much talk about Mr. Mubarak seeking asylum abroad, but does he qualify for asylum under international law?  I think the answer is an unqualified “No!”

A person who faces a well founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or particular social group, may qualify for asylum.  However, one who “ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person” on account of a protected ground is barred from asylum.  Under this provision, Mr. Mubarak is barred from receiving asylum.

Here are some reports about Mr. Mubarak’s Egypt.  First, from the U.S. State Department:

The government’s respect for human rights remained poor, and serious abuses continued in many areas.  The government limited citizens’ right to change their government and continued a state of emergency that has been in place almost continuously since 1967.  Security forces used unwarranted lethal force and tortured and abused prisoners and detainees, in most cases with impunity….  Security forces arbitrarily arrested and detained individuals, in some cases for political purposes, and kept them in prolonged pretrial detention.

Amnesty International reports:

The government continued to use state of emergency powers to detain peaceful critics and opponents….  Some were held under administrative detention orders; others were sentenced to prison terms after unfair trials before military courts.  Torture and other ill-treatment remained widespread in police cells, security police detention centres and prisons, and in most cases were committed with impunity.

And this, from the Daily Beast:

Few know the cruelty of Mubarak’s regime better than [Kareem] Amer, who spent the last four years in prison for criticizing the dictator and “insulting” Islam on his blog.  When I asked him to describe Mubarak’s record, he said: “Many human-rights activists and journalists were imprisoned during his reign.  Some were beaten and tortured.  Others were abducted or disappeared without a trace.  The most important of these incidents was the disappearance of the Egyptian journalist Reda Helal in the heart of Cairo in 2003.  Many believe the security services were behind the abduction because of his political views.”

Mr. Mubarak has been an ally of the U.S. and he respected the peace treaty with Israel, but he was a human rights abuser who held power by torturing and killing his own people.  With such a record, it is clear that Mr. Mubarak would be barred from asylum under international law.

Continue reading

1 Comment