In a prior post, we discussed asylum-seeker dependents at the Asylum Office. We’ll finish that discussion here, and also talk about dependents in Immigration Court, where there are some unique issues to be aware of. (more…)
Asylum seekers may include their spouse and unmarried, minor (under 21-years old) children as dependents on their asylum case, as long as the dependents are physically present in the United States. Here, we’ll discuss issues related to dependents at the Asylum Office. In a future, post, we’ll discuss dependents in Immigration Court, as there are some differences. Let’s get right to it. (more…)
This article is by Andrea Barron, the advocacy program manager at the Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition International, based in Washington, DC. The article was originally published in the Washington Post.
Genet Lire Dobamo was a 17-year-old elite sprinter with the Ethiopian national team when she defected at Dulles International Airport in 2014, terrified of returning to her native Ethiopia. She held Ethiopia’s national title for the 400-meter race and had an excellent chance of representing her country in the 2016 Olympics. But Dobamo had been severely beaten by police for opposing Ethiopia’s one-party dictatorship and was frightened of being tortured again or even killed if she returned home.
She applied for asylum in March 2015 and was featured in a Washington Post story on elite Ethiopian runners seeking asylum in the United States. The Post reporter said the asylum process can take “months, sometimes more than a year.” Six years later, Dobamo has still not been interviewed by an asylum officer at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), part of the Department of Homeland Security. (more…)
For “respondents” (non-citizens in removal proceedings) and their lawyers, Individual Hearings in Immigration Court are a big deal. Evidence must be gathered. Affidavits have to be prepared, checked, and re-checked. Witnesses must be identified, convinced to attend the hearing, and prepared for trial. Respondents practice their testimony. In most cases, the noncitizen has been waiting for many months or years for the trial date. The result of the trial determines whether the applicant can remain in the United States or must leave. When a respondent receives asylum, he is permitted to stay in the U.S. If he loses, he may be deported to a country where he faces danger. In many cases, respondents have family members here or overseas who are counting on them, and the outcome of the case affects the family members as well as the respondent. All of this provokes anxiety and anticipation. In short, Individual Hearings are life-changing events that profoundly effect respondents and their families.
So what happens when the Individual Hearing is canceled? (more…)
On September 24, 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that David Neal would take over as Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), the organization that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).
Director Neal was Chairman of the BIA, from 2009 to 2019, when he was apparently forced out by the Trump Administration. Mr. Neal also served as Vice Chairman of the BIA, Chief Immigration Judge, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, Immigration Judge (“IJ”), and Assistant to the Director. Indeed, he comes to the Directorship with probably more and diverse EOIR experience than any prior director. To top it off, he has a Master of Divinity from Harvard University (and of course a JD, but those are a dime a dozen).
The new Director will certainly need to draw on his past experience–and possibly seek divine intervention–as the agency he is now helming is a real mess. Currently, there are more than 1.4 million cases in the Immigration Court backlog. I have not found recent data on the BIA backlog, but in April 2020, it stood at 70,183 cases. To address the court backlog, EOIR is staffing up–from 535 judges to a projected 734 by the end of the current fiscal year (September 30, 2022). We are also seeing an increase in online and training resources for respondents (noncitizens in immigration proceedings) and practitioners.
Even during his short tenure, Director Neal has begun to take some positive steps. Aside from the new resources, EOIR has ended case completion quotas for Immigration Judge and also signaled a willingness to work with the National Association of Immigration Judges (the judges’ union), which the prior Administration had tried to de-certify.
These are encouraging signs, and hopefully we will also start to see improvements related more directly to respondents’ cases in Immigration Court and the BIA. Luckily for David Neal, I am here to offer my own suggestions (and who doesn’t love unsolicited advice?). These are my ten great ideas for EOIR– (more…)
Maybe you’ve heard this old joke–
One night, a policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what he has lost. The man says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if the drunk is sure he lost the keys here. The drunk replies, no, he lost them in the park. Surprised, the policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, “This is where the light is.”
Asylum interviews these days remind me of this joke. We spend–literally–hours sifting through testimony and evidence, as the Officer goes on a fishing expedition for fraud, even in cases where it’s quite clear that no fraud exists. Why is this happening? How can you prepare for these questions? (more…)
What’s it like to practice immigration law these days?
For a case in Immigration Court, we write the affidavit, gather evidence, get witness statements, research country conditions, organize everything, copy it, and submit copies to the court and to DHS within the 30-day deadline. We then hold practice sessions with the client and witnesses. A few days before the trial date, we check the online system. The case is canceled. There is no new date. There is no explanation.
We file an application for an asylee’s Green Card. The case takes forever. The client moves. We file a change of address and get an online confirmation. Finally, the client receives an online notice: The Green Card has been mailed and delivered. But not to his current address. USCIS has sent the card somewhere else. Maybe to his old address, but who knows? He does not have it, and requests to re-deliver the card have no effect. (more…)
Even before the Taliban took control of Afghanistan, that country was suffering a humanitarian disaster. In 2020, about 2.5 million Afghans were living outside their country as refugees; another 3.5 million were displaced within Afghanistan. In August 2021, the Taliban occupied Kabul, which triggered one of the largest air evacuations in history–over 124,000 people were flown out of Hamid Karzai International Airport.
Where all these people will go remains an open questions. As usual, Afghanistan’s neighbors are hosting the large majority of refugees, with more than 1.4 million in Pakistan and about 780,000 in Iran. Significant numbers of people are also in Europe and Turkey.
The United States is also accepting Afghans, and we are currently in the process of receiving about 50,000 people for permanent resettlement. Given our long involvement in Afghanistan, and that many Afghans relied on us and assisted our efforts, it seems only right that we protect those in need. The problem (or, more accurately, one problem) is that for most Afghan evacuees, there is no legal mechanism for them to remain permanently in the U.S., and so their legal status in our country is uncertain. (more…)
This summer, pro-immigrant Representative Gerry Connelly (D-Virginia) wrote to USCIS inquiring about the affirmative asylum backlog. The USCIS response is instructive.
First, USCIS notes that, “The backlog is the result of the mathematical reality that USCIS receives more cases than it can adjudicate given current resources.” That much is true. But here’s the money shot, which is where I part ways with the Biden Administration’s reasoning–
LIFO is a critical tool in controlling non-meritorious or fraudulent applications filed to take advantage of the backlog in order to obtain work authorization. But for LIFO, the backlog would doubtlessly be worse.
The evidence for this supposition is weak, and as I view things, based more on coincidence than causation. While the number of new cases decreased under LIFO, other factors–such as the Trump Administration’s Muslim travel ban, “extreme vetting” for visa applicants, and the coronavirus pandemic–better explain the reduction in new asylum filings. Here, we’ll examine how LIFO affects the backlog, and why I think the agency is wrong to conclude that the last-in, first-out system helps prevent fraud. (more…)
In April, I wrote about our efforts to lobby Congress for help with the affirmative asylum backlog. Those efforts have finally born some fruit. Last week, forty Democratic members of Congress wrote a letter to Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and Ur Jaddou, the Director of USCIS.
In the letter, the Members of Congress express their concern about the affirmative asylum backlog, which currently stands at well over 400,000 cases. The letter notes that many people in the backlog have already suffered severe trauma in their home countries, and expresses particular concern for “those who have languished in the backlog for extended periods of time—some close to seven years.” Many of these applicants are separated from immediate family members and have not seen their spouses or children for years.
Unless it passes a new law, Congress does not have the authority to order DHS or USCIS to take particular actions. However, this new letter is significant in that–for the first time–Congress is “recommending” certain actions by the agency to address the backlog. I imagine such recommendations must be taken seriously, given that Congress does ultimately control funding for DHS and, to a lesser extent, USCIS (USCIS is largely funded by user fees). Hopefully, the agencies will take a look at these recommendations and make some changes to help those who have been waiting the longest. The main recommendations are as follows– (more…)
This article is by Allen Schwartz, a former Asylum Officer who now offers consulting services to asylum seekers and attorneys. He may be reached at allen.schwartz@visaconsults.com or (305) 528-6474. Learn more about him at his website, www.visaconsults.com.
After a 23-year career as an Asylum Officer with INS/USCIS, I decided to retire in late 2019 and pursue my lifelong passions, such as travel and exploring this incredible world with its wide variety of people, cultures, and languages. I also planned on utilizing my extensive background in immigration, particularly asylum and refugee work, as a consultant. Little did I know or could have predicted that a few months after my retirement, the COVID-19 pandemic struck the world in unimaginable ways and turned “normal life” upside down. As a result of the pandemic, international borders were closed, embassies and consulates were shut down, travel was severely restricted, and immigration to the United States came to an almost virtual standstill.
COVID-19 has also dramatically reduced the number of affirmative asylum cases being scheduled and interviewed at our Asylum Offices here in the United States and the affirmative asylum backlog has continued to grow exponentially. Only recently have we seen that in-person asylum interviews are being scheduled again, albeit at a significantly reduced number.
Before COVID-19, each Asylum Officer was required to interview eight cases per week, a very daunting task. Currently, the number of interviews have been cut at least in half in most offices, since the Asylum Officer, the attorney/representative, and the applicant must be in separate rooms. A recent policy change requires that interpretation must be provided by a telephonic government-contracted translator during the interview. Prior to COVID-19, applicants were required to bring their own interpreter for the interview. The future for an accelerated and expansive interview schedule for affirmative asylum cases remains to be seen. While we wait, I have prepared a six-point “best advice” list for your review– (more…)
USCIS has a new Director. Ur Mendoza Jaddou is the daughter of a Mexican immigrant and an Iraqi immigrant. She started her career on Capitol Hill working for pro-immigrant Congresswoman (and former immigration attorney) Zoe Lofgren, and later served in the Department of Homeland Security during the Obama Administration. Ms. Jaddou spent her Trump-Administration exile as a law professor at American University. Earlier this year, President Biden nominated her to direct USCIS. The Senate confirmed her nomination on July 30, 2021 and she assumed the directorship last week.
In her first news release, Director Jaddou states–
As a proud American and a daughter of immigrants, I am deeply humbled and honored to return to USCIS as director. I look forward to leading a team of dedicated public servants committed to honoring the aspirations of people like my parents and millions of others who are proud to choose this country as their own. USCIS embodies America’s welcoming spirit as a land of opportunity for all and a place where possibilities are realized.
Since January, USCIS has taken immediate steps to reduce barriers to legal immigration, increase accessibility for immigration benefits, and reinvigorate the size and scope of humanitarian relief. As USCIS director, I will work each and every day to ensure our nation’s legal immigration system is managed in a way that honors our heritage as a nation of welcome and as a beacon of hope to the world; reducing unnecessary barriers and supporting our agency’s modernization. (more…)
A few months ago, I wrote that what applicants and lawyers need from the Biden Administration is predictability. Unless we know what to expect from “the system” and when to expect it, people cannot properly prepare their cases or have them fairly adjudicated. Unfortunately, what we have been seeing recently is the opposite of predictability–it is chaos, at least at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR – the agency that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts). Here, I will offer a few pieces of evidence in support of this proposition–
Exhibit A: The Immigration Court (or lack thereof) in York, PA
The Immigration Court in York, PA is located inside the York County Prison, which houses ICE detainees. After recent negotiations between the feds and the county failed to produce an agreement, ICE announced that all its detainees would be transferred to other facilities by August 12. With immigrant detainees set to leave York, EOIR informed court staff on June 30 that the Immigration Court would close by late July, and that all staff needed to take assignments at other courts (often in distant locations) or find new jobs. Besides being disruptive and demoralizing for EOIR staff (many of whom have been working in York for years, and have their homes and families there), the abrupt decision to close the court has left noncitizen detainees isolated from their families and their lawyers, and will make preparing their cases even more difficult. (more…)
Preparing an asylum case is a bit like building a fortress. You make the walls as strong as you can, re-enforce weak points, and hope for the best. It’s the job of the Asylum Officer, the DHS attorney (the prosecutor), and the Immigration Judge to probe for weaknesses and, where appropriate, break down the defenses. If they succeed, you lose your case. So here’s my theory: An adjudicator who wants to deny asylum can deny asylum. Some cases may be harder to deny than others, but a smart decision-maker can punch holes in even the strongest and most well-prepared asylum case.
In my own practice, I recently lost a case where the Immigration Judge meticulously deconstructed the asylum claim in order to deny relief. This was one of those cases that some IJs would have granted, and others would have denied. It so happens that our IJ has a 93.5% asylum denial rate, and so the odds of success were always pretty slim. But the decision got me thinking about how judges and Asylum Officers decide cases, and about whether I can do more to prevent future losses. (more…)
Last week, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued two decisions reversing Trump-era cases that limited asylum eligibility. Here, we’ll discuss those cases and how the AG’s decision will affect asylum seekers.
The first case, Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N 307 (AG 2021), involves asylum for victims of domestic violence. There is a long history here, but the basic story is that victims of domestic violence have traditionally had a hard time qualifying for asylum. Through a series of cases between 2004 and 2014, the government created a (convoluted) path for victims of DV to receive asylum by classifying them as a “particular social group” (to qualify for asylum, an applicant must show that the feared harm is “on account of” race, religion, nationality, political opinion or particular social group). While this was an important step for DV asylum seekers, presenting a successful case was still very difficult, especially for people without a lawyer (probably the majority of applicants). The Trump Administration re-visited DV asylum starting in 2018, and essentially erased the gains made during the prior decade and a half. Now, the pendulum has swung once again, and the Biden Administration has reversed the Trump-era reversal. In other words, we are back to the not-so-great place where we were in 2017. This means that victims of domestic violence can once again obtain asylum, assuming they can satisfy the narrow definition created prior to President Trump. (more…)