This article is by Aldis Petriceks of Harvard Medical School, Erin Shortell of Harvard Law School, and Dr. Francis X. Shen, JD, PhD. Executive Director, Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Law, Brain, and Behavior; Instructor in Psychology, Harvard Medical School; Senior Fellow in Law and Applied Neuroscience, Harvard Law School Petrie-Flom Center.
The success of an asylum claim relies, to a large degree, on the perceived credibility of an asylum seeker’s memory. The Real ID Act of 2005 states that “[t]he testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee” (emphasis added). Asylum officers and immigration judges are told, in a sense, to act as mind readers, subjectively deciding whether or not to believe the narratives of asylum seekers.
But how do judges and asylum officers assess credibility? Additional evidence, such as physical signs of abuse or country-level evidence of systematic torture, can bolster credibility in this context. But such evidence may not be available, and even if it is, credibility assessments still turn on asylum adjudicators’ subjective perceptions of asylum seekers’ memories.
Introducing your authors: Aldis Petriceks, Erin Shortell, and Francis X. Shen.
Credibility determinations thus often rest on the consistency (or lack thereof) in an asylum seeker’s story. The REAL ID Act provides that “ … a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on … the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements … , the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record … , and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.”
Asylum applicants will often recount their stories at multiple points in the legal journey, including immediately upon entry into the U.S.; in a subsequent written affidavit; and before an asylum officer or immigration judge. If inconsistencies or inaccuracies emerge, the asylum adjudicator often infers that the asylum seeker intends to deliberately mislead him or her.
There is, of course, a logic to this inference. If the story changes, one might reasonably infer that the storyteller is purposely crafting a narrative more favorable to a preferred legal outcome.
Intuition is important, but decades of research into the neuroscience of memory suggest that such intuitions need to be carefully examined. Research conclusively shows that memory is not a digital recording of our lives, and thus changes in asylum seekers’ narratives over time may not be due to deliberate deception but rather to the nature of human memory itself.
Autobiographical memories are not accessed as one might re-watch a scene from a movie. Rather, memories are “dynamically reconstructed mental representations,” and they change every time they are retrieved and recounted.
Memory scientists typically talk about three phases of a memory: Encoding (when the sensory systems first register the sights, sounds, smells and more of an event); storage (when that memory gets tucked away in the brain for later use); and retrieval (when the memory is consciously recalled). Context affects each of these stages. Of great relevance to asylum seekers’ credibility is the well-known finding that trauma and stress affect how memories are initially encoded, whether and how they are stored, and how we consciously recall them.
The bottom line for credibility is that inconsistencies in autobiographical recall may not reflect a willful attempt to bend the truth, but rather the biological reality that recalling memories usually involves modification of those memories in ways of which most people are not fully aware.
Do asylum adjudicators take notice of this neuroscience? In theory, they could. The Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations Directorate (“RAIO”) Manual for Officer Training tells officers that it is “[their] job to determine whether those inconsistencies and/or contradictions are due to a lack of credibility or may be explained by other factors.” One of these “other factors” is the basic neurobiology of trauma and memory. But in practice, it is difficult to gauge the extent to which asylum officers abide by this instruction.
What would it mean for asylum adjudicators to better understand the relationship between memory, narrative inconsistency, credibility, and the human brain? To begin, it would entail the realization that many asylum seekers have endured tremendous trauma, and that this trauma often has documented effects on memory. Asylum seekers who have experienced trauma in their home countries, on the way to the U.S., or upon entry into the U.S., are often burdened by these effects. Brain scan research on individuals with PTSD, for instance, finds decreased activity in the brain networks associated with autobiographical memory, and an associated decrease in specific autobiographical recall. Given the prevalence of PTSD among asylum seekers, it is likely that many otherwise credible refugees will fail to describe their journeys, fears, and traumas in a detailed, coherent manner across multiple interviews. This failure, however, does not necessarily indicate a lack of credibility.
Acute stress often interferes with autobiographical memory. People perform more poorly on memory tests after injections of hydrocortisone, a compound which mimics the effects of cortisol on the body. When faced with significant trauma, children often recount memories in a vaguer, less detailed manner, regardless of the presence or extent of primary psychological conditions.
It remains unknown exactly how trauma and memory are related in the brain. Some researchers believe that trauma leads to an over-general mode of autobiographical memory largely because the exclusion of detail might prevent re-traumatization. Others argue that trauma directly alters the activity of certain neurological networks, changing one’s ability to retrieve and recall specific memories. Regardless of the particular theory embraced, however, there is general agreement that people with histories of trauma have more altered capacities to remember specific details of events in their lives, and that those alterations are at least associated with measurable changes in neurological structure, function, and physiology.
So far, this neuroscientific knowledge has not been widely introduced to asylum officers or immigration judges. When these adjudicators determine that an applicant is not credible, “they overwhelmingly rely on inconsistencies within or among the various versions of the applicant’s story.” Can this gap between scientific understanding of memory and legal practice be bridged? At the MGH Center for Law, Brain, and Behavior, we think the answer is yes—with sustained effort and input from multiple disciplines.
Three areas are ripe for exploration. First, attorneys and judges need an improved understanding of how autobiographical memory works. To be sure, memory neuroscience cannot provide an asylum officer or immigration judge with an individualized “credibility detector.” But neuroscience can provide evidence for re-examining default presumptions that tend to equate inconsistency with deliberate falsehood.
Second, scientific articles standing alone are not sufficient to inform legal doctrine and practice. Actionable neuroscience requires the development of materials that can be readily adapted by lawyers to put forth arguments related to neuroscience, memory, trauma, and credibility.
Third, extended dialogue is required to explore both the promise and pitfalls of introducing neuroscience into asylum case law. For instance, might neuroscience memory research allow government lawyers to challenge otherwise consistent recollections? Just as a criminal defense attorney might call a “false memory” expert to aid his or her client’s defense, could similar arguments be made in the asylum context to undercut genuine claims of persecution? These and other concerns must be adequately addressed as part of an on-going law and neuroscience dialogue.
As with any new endeavor, the path for neuroscience and law in asylum cases is not clear. But there is much promise, and we hope there will be much more dialogue in the future.
About the MGH Center for Law, Brain, and Behavior: The Center for Law, Brain, and Behavior works at the vanguard of applied neuroscience, making neuroscience actionable for the legal community in order to ensure just and positive outcomes for all those affected by the law. Though the brain and the law are both complex, our work is quite simple: helping judges, lawyers, case workers, enforcement agents and many other actors across the legal ecosystem determine the right solutions for the right people and cases. We promote and enable the sound application of accurate neuroscience to critical areas of the legal process: criminal trials and sentencing, juvenile justice, elder protection and immigration enforcement and asylum. For more, see clbb.org.
Have an asylum case in Immigration Court and wondering what to do while the courts are closed? My friend David L. Cleveland has a suggestion: Get a copy of your file from the Asylum Office. David is a lawyer in Washington, DC. He has secured asylum or withholding for people from 48 countries. He can be reached at 1949.david@gmail.com.
In most cases, when an asylum applicant has their case denied at the Asylum Office, the case is referred to Immigration Court. There, Immigration Judges sometimes deny asylum because the applicant is deemed incredible. The applicant has told the Asylum Officer one thing, but then tells the Judge something different. There are many examples of Judges being annoyed by inconsistent asylum applicants–
In a New York case, the applicant was inconsistent concerning the location of children and where she was raped. Kalala v. Barr, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8320 (2nd Cir. 2020).
in a California case, the applicant was inconsistent concerning the name of a police station. In this case, the Asylum Officer’s notes were shown to applicant for the first time during the Individual Hearing. Sun v. Barr, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5397 (9th Cir. 2020).
In an Ohio case, the applicant testified to being beaten inside a church. When she asked about how many members of the church were present at the time, she first said 15. Later, she testified that six church members were present. Onoori v. Barr, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21310 (6th Cir. 2019).
Now that he has a copy of his client’s file, David Cleveland is finally able to relax.
More generally, Immigration Judges are very interested in what Asylum Officers do and write. In a case decided in 2019, the phrase “Asylum Officer” is used 32 times. Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2019). In a 2018 case, the phrase “Asylum Officer” is mentioned 57 times, and “notes” (referring to the Officer’s notes from the asylum interview) was mentioned several times. Dai v. Sessions, 884 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2018). In another case, from 2014, an Asylum Officer named “Kuriakose” is mentioned 15 times. Li v. Holder, 745 F.3d 336 (8th Cir. 2014).
In these cases, asylum applicant’s were deemed not credible because their Court testimony was inconsistent with their testimony at the Asylum Office. Most likely, the applicants did not have a record of what they told the Asylum Officer, and of course, since years pass between an asylum interview and an Individual Hearing, it is difficult to remember what transpired at the Asylum Office.
How can I prevent surprise in Immigration Court?
When an Asylum Officer interviews an applicant, the Officer takes detailed notes. Often, these run to 10 pages or more. Later, in consultation with his supervisor, the Officer writes an “Assessment to Refer” or an “Assessment to Grant.” This document is usually three or four pages long. If the case is referred to Court, these notes do not go to the Immigration Judge. However, they are sent to the DHS attorney (the prosecutor), who can review them and look for inconsistencies. At the Individual Hearing, the DHS attorney can use the notes to impeach an applicant’s credibility (“At the asylum interview, you testified that there were 15 people present in the church when you were beaten, but now you say there were only six. Were you lying then, or are you lying now?”).
Asylum Officers sometimes make mistakes or include unexpected information in their notes. They find some sources of information important and ignore other sources. In short, there is a subjective element to these notes that can sometimes work against the applicant and cause surprises in Immigration Court. And, as any attorney will tell you, surprises in Court are usually bad news.
To avoid a surprise in Court, and to find out what the officer wrote, the advocate should make a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request for the notes and the Assessment. Asylum Officer notes are easily available via FOIA. To obtain this information, type your request on a single piece of paper: “Give me the notes and assessment of the asylum officer.” State your name, date of birth, place of birth, address, Alien number, and sign under penalty of perjury. You do not need a lawyer; you do not need Form G-639, although you are allowed to use that form. Send your request via email to: uscis.foia@uscis.dhs.gov
In January 2020, I received the entire Asylum Officer assessment for an asylum applicant from Congo. The client and I are now more relaxed and confident about the case. We will not be surprised in Immigration Court. You can read this assessment at the FOIA page of the Louise Trauma Center. A model FOIA request can also be found at the same page.
The coronavirus is causing unprecedented disruptions to nearly every area of life, and the Immigration Courts are no exception. The courts were already in a post-apocalyptic era, with over one million cases in the backlog, and now the situation has been thrown into near total chaos. The fundamental problem is that EOIR–the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the office that oversees Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals–is determined to continue adjudicating cases, even if that means risking the lives of its own employees; not to mention the lives of respondents, witnesses, and lawyers (and anyone who comes into contact with them).
EOIR is closing and re-opening various courts seemingly at random, often times with an after-hours Tweet, such as one last night at 9:23 PM, declaring that the Newark and Seattle Immigration Courts will reopen today for purposes of accepting filings and litigating detained cases (non-detained cases through April 10, 2020 have been postponed). In reaction to this latest news, Susan G. Roy, an attorney and former Immigration Judge (and my friend from law school – Hi Sue!) wrote last night–
NJ has the second highest number of corona virus cases in the nation, second only to NY. The Newark Immigration Court was closed because someone tested positive for the virus. Now a DHS attorney is fighting for his life in ICU, another attorney is very ill, and an interpreter has tested positive. These are the ones we know about. The Court was set to reopen on April 12. That is a reasonable time to ensure that everyone is safe and that the risk of transmission is limited. How is it even remotely reasonable to decide to open TOMORROW? Even if it is only for filings, court staff and others will be forced to violate the Governor’s Executive Order [directing all residents to stay at home], put themselves at great risk, and risk contaminating others, while many people who work in the same building remain under mandatory quarantine. You are ruthlessly jeopardizing the lives of your own employees, not to mention the public, for no legitimate reason.
There’s a new dress code at the Boston Immigration Court (and yes, this photo really is from the Boston Immigration Court).
And it’s not just advocates who are upset about EOIR’s decision-making. The National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ” – the judges’ union) and ICE attorneys are also reacting with anger. In response to EOIR’s tweet reopening the courts in Seattle and Newark, NAIJ responds, “Putting our lives at risk, one Tweet at a time.” And Fanny Behar-Ostrow, an ICE prosecutor and president of AFGE Local 511, says of EOIR: “It’s like insanity has taken over the agency,“
One of our members recently had a detained master calendar hearing scheduled for this past Friday, March 20, at the Varick St. Court. In order to prepare the bond application and for the master, the attorney and his staff met with the client‘s mother. A request for a bond hearing, together with the required relief applications, and a request for a telephonic hearing, were hand delivered to the Court at noon on Wednesday March 18th, 2020. The attorney did not receive any response to the motion for a telephonic hearing, and repeated calls to the court that day and the next went unanswered. To ensure that the Court was aware of the request, the client‘s mother retrieved from the attorney‘s office, Thursday evening, a letter to the court confirming the request for a telephonic hearing. She traveled to the court in Manhattan, from Long Island, and delivered the letter to the Clerk, and thereafter waited in the waiting area with family members of other detainees and other attorneys who were compelled to appear.
Today we received confirmation the client‘s mother has been diagnosed with COVID–19 virus, through medical testing. Can you imagine the number of people she came into contact with as the result of the decision to keep this court open? In addition to exposing the attorney and office staff, she traveled from her home on Long Island, on the Long Island Railroad, to Penn Station, from there to the subway and ultimately to the Court. Undoubtedly she came into contact with, and exposed, countless numbers of people, who in turn exposed countless others.
Anyone with a basic grasp of the fundamental principles of epidemiology – easily garnered from watching CNN or the local evening news – understands how easily this virus spreads. Given this, the decision to continue to keep the courts open can only be construed as a conscious decision on the part of EOIR to subject our Immigration Judges, court staff, interpreters, DHS attorneys, institutional defenders, members of the private bar, our clients, their families, and all whom they come into contact with, to an unreasonable risk of infection, serious illness and death.
NAIJ echoes this sentiment: “With [New York] the epicenter of the virus, DOJ is failing to protect its employees and the public we serve.”
The appropriate path forward is painfully obvious. EOIR should immediately close all courts for all cases. Staff should work remotely when possible to re-set dates and adjudicate bond decisions (so non-criminal aliens who do not pose a danger to the community can be released from detention). That is the best way to protect everyone involved with the Immigration Court system and the public at large.
Finally, I think it is important to name names. The Director of EOIR is James McHenry. I have never been a fan. Mr. McHenry was profoundly unqualified for his job, having gone from supervising maybe half a dozen people in a prior position to overseeing thousands at EOIR. However, he was politically aligned with the goals of the Trump Administration and he got the job. I have previously described the functioning of the agency during Mr. McHenry’s tenure as maliciousness tempered by incompetence. But these days, it is more like maliciousness exacerbated by incompetence. And in the current crisis, incompetence can be deadly. It’s time for Mr. McHenry and EOIR to do the right thing: Close the courts now.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) recently announced a new way to check case status on-line. The system provides information about cases that are (or were) pending before the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals. According to the EOIR press release–
The automated case information application allows users to receive the most recent information about a case after inputting a unique alien registration number. Available information includes next scheduled hearings, decision information at the immigration court and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) levels, and court and BIA contact information. Immigration courts’ operating statuses are also included.
The new portal can be found here. By entering your Alien number, you can view your case information in English or Spanish. This new system is similar to the old EOIR telephone hotline (which still works–you can call 800-898-7180 to obtain information about your case). The online system provides similar information to the hotline, but in written format.
Easy access to court information is great, but maybe it could be a bit less public.
Overall, I like this online system better than the telephone hotline. It is more convenient and faster to use. It also includes some helpful information that the hotline does not provide, such as better court contact information and news about court closures (at the bottom of the portal home page). That said–and I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth–I do have a few quibbles with this shiny new toy (shocking, I know).
First, and maybe most significantly, when you enter your Alien number and go to the page with information about your case, you will see your full name displayed at the top. This makes me nervous. Maybe I am old fashioned, but I don’t like seeing my asylum-seeker clients’ names displayed for all the world to see (not to mention their A-numbers and information about their cases). I worry that information like this should not be so publicly available.
To be fair, you can’t access this information without the person’s A-number, and when you call the EOIR hotline, you can obtain essentially the same information already. It’s just that having this information available in written format somehow seems less secure. Also, because the online portal is so much faster than the telephone hotline, it’s not difficult to enter one A-number after another and get information about lots of random people. This is particularly easy since A-numbers are assign sequentially. So if you know one person’s number, you can change it slightly and find other (random) people’s names and numbers. Whether this information could be used for nefarious purposes, I do not know, but given the human capacity for mischief, I imagine it is a possibility.
Perhaps a partial solution here is to provide less information about the alien–maybe just the person’s initials. Whether that would provide much protection against bad actors, I am not sure, but it seems safer than displaying the full name. Another possibility would be to require users to enter their Alien number and their name in order to access the system. This would at least make it more difficult to gain access to random people’s information.
A second quibble is that the portal does not distinguish between removal, Withholding of Removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In each case, the decision information will indicate that the person has been denied relief (in contrast, where a person has been granted asylum or a Green Card, the system will indicate that the Immigration Judge “granted the application”). This is the same information that is provided through the telephone system. Having talked to some government techies, I know it is not always possible to obtain more specific information from existing databases, but it would be helpful to know whether a person has been denied all relief or has been granted Withholding or CAT.
A third issue is that the online system does not provide any information about the Asylum Clock. This is surprising, since the telephone hotline does give information about the clock. For some asylum applicants, it is possible to get clock information from USCIS by entering the asylum receipt number (not the Alien number) here. But given this fancy new online system, it’s too bad that clock data is not included as part of the package.
Finally, and this is perhaps an unfair criticism, it seems to me that EOIR could do a lot more with this website. For example, it could include contact information for the relevant DHS office (you can find that separately here). It could indicate whether biometrics are current. Each individual Immigration Court has its own webpage (which you can access here) with information about office hours, staff, parking, and more. It would be nice if the portal provided a link to the relevant court’s webpage. Maybe it could also include links to local pro bono resources and to the Immigration Court Practice Manual. And if we’re really ambitious, it could include information about how to submit a complaint against an adjudicator, other court personnel or an attorney. Dare to dream.
One last point–the new portal is only useful if people know that it exists. Instead of all the mumbo jumbo on the Notice to Appear and the Immigration Court scheduling order, why not include a prominent (and I mean **PROMINENT**) link to the new online system? This new system is not bad (despite my kvetching) and it would be great if more people learn about it.
These days, anything resembling a positive development in immigration world should be celebrated. EOIR’s online portal is a helpful tool for immigrants and their advocates. I hope EOIR will continue to upgrade this system to make it more secure and more useful for us all.
EOIR–the Executive Office for Immigration Review–has proposed a fee increase for applications before the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The new fees purportedly reflect the cost of adjudicating the various applications that EOIR reviews, and include the following–
Increase the fee for Form EOIR-26 (Notice of Appeal from a Decision of an Immigration Judge) from $110 to $975.
Increase the fee for Form EOIR-29 (Notice of Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals from a Decision of a DHS Officer) from $110 to $705.
Increase the fee for Form EOIR-40 (Application for Suspension of Deportation) from $100 to $305.
Increase the fee for Form EOIR-42A (Application for Cancellation of Removal for Certain Permanent Residents) from $100 to $305.
Increase the fee for Form EOIR-42B (Application for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain Nonpermanent Residents) from $100 to $360.
Increase the fee for filing a motion to reopen or reconsider with the immigration court from $110 to $145.
Increase the fee for filing a motion to reopen or reconsider with the BIA from $110 to $895,
Also, the new fees include a $50 fee for asylum cases filed with the Immigration Court (I wrote about this previously after USCIS proposed a similar fee for asylum cases filed with that agency).
EOIR hopes to revive the tradition of paying your executioner.
As you can see, the new fees are significantly higher than the current fees. EOIR Director James McHenry justifies the fee increase as follows–
The proposed fee increases are marginal in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars and would mitigate the significant taxpayer subsidization of these forms and motions. EOIR is long past due for a review of its fee-based filings, especially as its caseload and costs have increased substantially since 1986.
As usual, Mr. McHenry’s comments reflect his lack of compassion for vulnerable immigrants, not to mention his tenuous grasp of reality. A 900% fee increase for BIA appeals is certainly not “marginal,” and will likely preclude many people from exercising their right to due process of law. Sadly, though, the rights of immigrants have never been a priority or a concern for Mr. McHenry, at least as far as I can tell, and so his comments are hardly surprising.
Now, to be fair, EOIR has not increased fees for 30 years, and so a review of current fees is overdue, and a reasonable fee increase could certainly be justified. Let’s take, for example, the most impactful of the new fees, the fee to appeal an Immigration Court decision to the BIA. The current fee is $110. According to EOIR, had this fee been adjusted for inflation (starting in 1986), it would be $252.63 in today’s dollars. So in that sense, the current fee is less than it should be (whatever that means). The new proposed fee of $975 is nearly nine times the current fee, but “only” about four times the adjusted-for-inflation fee.
Also, a fee waiver may be available for those who need it, using form EOIR-26A. This form (at least in its current iteration) is fairly simple, and seeks information about the applicant’s income and expenses. It’s not clear how much evidence is needed to support the contentions in the form, but given the wide latitude of adjudicators to grant or deny a fee waiver, it seems to me that the wise applicant will include significant supporting evidence (which may require a lot of work). Pursuant to the regulations, EOIR has the “discretion” to grant a fee waiver. However, the regulations also indicate that, “if the fee waiver request does not establish the inability to pay the required fee, the appeal or motion will not be deemed properly filed.” Does this mean that an appeal filed along with a fee waiver will be rejected if the fee waiver is denied? Will EOIR provide some type of notice, so that applicants can raise the fee and pay for their appeal? How much time will EOIR allow to pay the fee? It’s hard to be optimistic about any of this, given that the whopping new fees seem purposely designed to dissuade applicants from pursuing their rights before the Immigration Courts and the BIA.
Finally, EOIR’s main justification for the new fees is that costs for the agency have increased, and raising fees will help cover EOIR’s expenses and protect tax payers–to the tune of about $45 million per year. To come up with their numbers, EOIR completed a study where they looked at who adjudicates the various applications, how long it takes, and how much it costs (taking into account salaries, but not other expenses such as overhead or employee benefits). How accurate is this study? I have no idea. Different appeals, for example, require very different amounts of work. Some appeals are simple; others are complicated. But even assuming the new fees accurately reflect EOIR’s expenses, I think that fee increases of this magnitude are unfair for two main reasons.
First, EOIR’s justification for these fees is a con job. They talk about the expenses of immigrants, but not the contributions of immigrants to our society. The Trump Administration tried this trick at least once before, when it suppressed a study showing that refugees contribute more to our economy than they take, and instead released a distorted study, listing only the costs of helping refugees. You simply can’t separate out the costs of maintaining an immigration system from the benefits we as a nation derive from that system. Yet that is what EOIR is doing here: Director McHenry decries the expenses to the system, but we learn nothing about how immigrants contribute to our economy (and the weight of the evidence indicates that immigration benefits our economy).
Second, in its mission statement, EOIR indicates that it “is committed to providing fair, expeditious, and uniform application of the nation’s immigration laws in all cases.” How can it fulfill this mission if the people before the Immigration Courts and the BIA cannot afford the relief to which they are entitled? To have a functioning legal system, people in our country need access to courts–civil courts, criminal courts, and immigration courts, among others. Our’s is not (and should not be) a nation where you receive only the justice you can afford. Non-citizens who live in our country should not be an exception to this rule. Or, as the indefatigable Paul Wickham Schmidt writes—
Correcting errors on appeal is probably one of the most important functions the Government performs. That’s particularly true when the public segment “served” is generally limited income individuals and the getting results correct could be “life determining.”
At this stage, the new fees are proposed, but not yet in effect. The public can submit comments about the proposal, and perhaps that will cause EOIR to modify its plan. To submit comments, see page 2 of the proposed rule.
Make no mistake, these proposed fees are another attack on immigrants, justified with half truths, and implemented because immigrants are too vulnerable to fight back. All people of good conscience should continue to resist these terrible policies, which directly impact our non-citizen neighbors, but which, in the end, harm us all.
Last fall, the Asylum Division cancelled its quarterly stakeholder engagement meeting and postponed the release of data about the various Asylum Offices. Now, finally, that information has been released. The news is generally bad (who would have guessed?), but the data contains some bright spots and surprises–as well as a few mysteries. Here, we’ll take a look at the most recent news from our nation’s Asylum Offices.
First, the data. The Asylum Division has released statistics for FY2019, which ended on September 30, 2019. The data shows that despite the Trump Administration’s hostility towards asylum seekers, many people continue to seek protection in the United States–through the fiscal year, a total of 82,807 new affirmative asylum applications were filed (and remember that some of these cases include dependents, so I imagine the total number of people filing for asylum in FY2019 is well over 100,000). Case completions are still not keeping up with new filings, and the overall asylum backlog continues to grow: From 323,389 at the beginning of the fiscal year, to 339,836 at the end. Throughout the year, the number one source country for new asylum cases was Venezuela. China was number two for most of the year, followed by Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Mexico.
In terms of grant rates, the news is fairly negative, but not uniformly so. As an arbitrary base-line, I will use a post I did in February 2016 about Asylum Office data from the second half of FY2015 (April to September 2015). I calculated the percentage of cases granted at each Asylum Office. In crunching the numbers, I discounted cases that were denied because the applicant failed to appear for an interview, but I included cases that were denied solely because the applicant failed to meet the one-year asylum filing deadline. I’ve made the same calculations for the period April to September 2019, and compared the grant rates for both time periods in the chart below.
Whenever a lawyer does math: Beware!
As I mentioned, I did not include “no shows” in my data. For this reason, government statistics about the asylum grant rate will be lower than my numbers, since they include people who failed to appear for their interviews. If I had included “no-shows,” the FY2019 grant rate in Arlington would be only 19.5% (instead of 26.5%, as shown in the chart). The New York grant rate would drop to a paltry 7.1%, and the grant rate in San Francisco–the “best” asylum office–would fall to a still-respectable 54.0%. Arguably, it makes sense to include “no shows,” since some people may not appear due to no fault of their own. However, I chose to leave them out, since I suspect most have either found other relief or have left the country, and I don’t think it is useful to evaluate Asylum Offices based on denials where the applicant never appeared for an interview.
One problem with my comparison is that there are more asylum offices today than there were in 2015. The two new offices are Boston and New Orleans. The Boston office was previously a sub-office of Newark, and the New Orleans office was part of the Houston office (though in truth, I am not sure whether all of New Orleans’s jurisdiction was covered by Houston, or whether some was covered by Arlington). To account for this, the first numbers listed for Houston and Newark for FY2019 is the percentage of cases granted in that office. The numbers in parenthesis for Houston and Newark include cases that would have been within the jurisdictions of those offices in FY2015 (i.e., the New Orleans cases are included with Houston and the Boston cases with Newark). Thus, the parentheticals are useful only for comparison with the FY2015 numbers; if you are just interested in the percentage of cases granted in Houston and New Orleans in FY2019, look only at the first number.
The same chart, but here, I have removed one-year bar denials (reminder: Beware!!).
As you can see, there is an overall decline in the grant rate at most offices. In some cases, this decline is quite significant. One office–Houston–bucked the trend and actually granted a higher percentage of cases than in FY2015.
But perhaps things are not quite as bad as they appear. The numbers in the first chart include cases denied solely because the applicant failed to file asylum on time (remember that you are barred from asylum unless you file within one year of arriving in the U.S. or you meet an exception to that rule). In the second chart, I factored out cases that were denied solely because they were untimely (the Asylum Offices have been identifying late-filed cases and interviewing them; unless the applicant overcomes the one-year bar, the case is referred to Immigration Court without considering the merits of the asylum claim; since they are interviewing many such cases, this is pushing overall denial rates up). Comparing the two fiscal years in chart two, the decline in grant rates is much less severe. Indeed, three offices granted a higher percentage of timely-filed cases in FY2019 than in FY2015.
So what’s happening here? Why did grant rates generally decline? Why did some offices improve? What does all this mean for asylum seekers?
First of all, these numbers must be taken with a big grain of salt (and not just because I am an incompetent mathematician). A lot is going on at each Asylum Office. Different offices have different types of cases, including different source countries, greater or fewer numbers of unaccompanied alien children (“UAC”) cases, and different policies in terms of interviewing untimely applicants. As a result, some offices may be interviewing more “difficult” cases, while other offices are interviewing more “easy” cases. Offices that interview many Central American cases, or many UAC cases, for instance, will likely have lower grant rates than other offices. This is because Central American cases and UAC cases are more likely to be denied than many other types of asylum cases. Also, some offices are more aggressive than others in terms of identifying and interviewing untimely asylum cases. Offices that interview more late-filed cases will likely have a higher denial rate than offices that interview fewer late-filed cases.
Despite all this, it is fairly clear that the overall trend is negative. One obvious reason for this is a series of precedential cases and policy changes during the Trump Administration that have made it more difficult for certain asylum seekers, particularly victims of domestic violence and people who fear harm from Central American gangs. In addition–and I think this is probably less of a factor–the leadership at DHS and DOJ has repeatedly expressed hostility towards asylum seekers and encouraged the rank-and-file to identify and deny fraudulent applications.
Finally, as my colleague Victoria Slatton points out, it’s possible that the negative trend is worse than what the numbers above reflect. In FY2015, the Asylum Division gave priority to UAC cases. Since such cases are more likely to be denied, interviewing more of them may have pushed the overall grant rates down. In FY2019, UAC cases were not given priority, meaning that (probably) fewer UACs were interviewed. All things being equal, fewer UAC cases should mean a higher overall approval rate, but that is not what happened at most Asylum Offices. This may mean that more non-UAC cases are being denied today than in FY2015.
As you can see, there are a lot of moving parts, and a lot is going on behind these numbers. In one important sense, though, things have not changed much in the last four years. Strong cases still usually win; weak cases often fail. For asylum seekers (and their lawyers), we can only control so much of the process. Submitting a case that is well prepared, consistent, and supported by evidence will maximize your chances of success. And as the numbers above show, success is still possible even in these difficult times.
The latest data on asylum grant rates in Immigration Court is out, and as expected, the news is not great. Overall asylum grant rates in court continued to decline in FY 2019, but the news is not all bad. Courts adjudicated a record number of asylum cases this past year: 67,406, up from 42,224 last year and 19,779 in FY2015. Many cases are still being granted. Indeed, even though grant rates are down, in absolute numbers, more asylum cases are being approved than ever (this is because the total number of asylum cases adjudicated is way up). Also, the percentage of applicants represented by attorneys continues to climb (slowly). Here, we’ll take a look at the newest data and what it means for asylum applicants.
Let’s start with the bad news (so no one can accuse me of being an optimist). In FY2019, 69% of asylum seekers were denied asylum or other relief in Immigration Court. This continues a negative trend that began in FY2012, when the overall denial rate was at an all time low–only about 42% of asylum applicants were denied in that glorious year. Since then, denial rates have been steadily climbing. Last year (FY2018), the overall denial rate was 65%. Despite the general negative trend, if we break down the reasons behind the high denial rate, perhaps we can find a silver lining.
On a positive note, courts granted asylum to 19,831 people in FY2019. They are pictured above, celebrating.
One factor affecting the overall denial rate was the large number of decisions for cases where the applicant was not represented by an attorney. For unrepresented applicants, the denial rate was 84%. Interestingly, unrepresented cases move much more quickly than represented cases: 45.3% of unrepresented cases that started in FY2019 were resolved in FY2019. In contrast, only 9.7% of represented cases that began in FY2019 have been decided. I suspect that many of the unrepresented cases are for detained applicants, as such cases tend to go much faster than non-detained cases (since the government does not like to pay for incarceration). Also, it may be that some unrepresented applicants who are recent arrivals in the U.S. have their cases adjudicated on an expedited basis.
Another major factor affecting denial rates is country of origin. Four of the top five source countries for asylum seekers are El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, and Honduras. Together, these countries represented about 22% of all asylum cases decided in Immigration Court in FY2019. But for various reasons (harsh U.S. laws, difficulty proving nexus), these countries tend to have higher-than-average asylum denial rates–in the range of 80% denials. So if you factor out these four countries, the overall denial rate would be lower (if you are from one of these countries, it is very helpful to talk to a lawyer and think through the most effective way to present your case). You can look up the success rate for people from your country here (this data can be broken down by court, but not by individual judge).
Other factors that contribute to the high denial rate include detained cases and one-year-bar cases, which are both harder to win than non-detained cases and cases filed on time. A final–and unexpected–factor in the high denial rate is the government shut-down of January 2019. During that period, only detained cases were adjudicated, and since such cases are more difficult to win, the denial rate during the shut-down shot up to nearly 75%. This in turn pushed up the overall denial rate for the year.
For asylum seekers who are wondering about the likelihood of success in court, all these variables must be considered. If you are represented by an attorney, if you are not from Central America or Mexico, if you are not detained, and if you file your case on time, the overall asylum denial rate should be significantly better than 69%. So I guess that is good news, sort-of.
But of course, overall denial rates are of little consequence given that grant rates vary by judge (sometimes quite dramatically). To find the name of your Immigration Judge (“IJ”), call 800-898-7180. When the machine answers, follow the instructions and enter your Alien number. You can then press “1” and hear your next court date and–hopefully–the name of your IJ. If your IJ is not listed in the system, it may mean that no one is yet assigned to the case, but you can double check by calling the Immigration Court directly and asking the receptionist whether your case is assigned to a judge. Once you know your judge’s name, you can look here to find asylum denial rates for your particular IJ (for new judges, there may be no data available).
A few points about the individual IJ data: First, it is probably best to look at the most current denial rate (FY2019), since recent (negative) changes in the law may have affected the percentage of cases judges approve. Thus, the older data may be less relevant to a case today. Second, as we discussed, representation rates and country of origin affect overall grant rates. If you scroll to the bottom of the IJ’s page, you can get some idea of the representation rate before that judge, as well as the source countries for asylum seekers that the judge sees. If the IJ adjudicates many unrepresented cases, and/or many cases from Central America and Mexico, this may increase that IJ’s denial rate. Finally, some IJs decide large numbers of detained cases and this would also negatively affect the judge’s grant rate (the data that I see does not list the percentage of detained cases decided by each judge).
Having said all this, I am not sure how useful it is. Unless you move, you have basically no control over who will be your judge. It is better, I think, to focus on what you can control: Gathering evidence and witnesses, preparing your case, and finding a competent attorney. In my experience, most IJs are fair and will listen to your case. The biggest factor in determining whether you win is usually the case itself, and the most productive thing you can do is focus on the variables you can control, and present the strongest case possible.
Finally, I would be remiss not to thank TRAC Immigration for their continued superb work gathering Immigration Court data (often under difficult circumstances). So thank you, TRAC, and keep up the good work.
Way back in the summer of 2015, immigration lawyers started to notice that EOIR was scheduling hundreds, maybe thousands, of Immigration Court cases for a single date: November 29, 2019. Supposedly, this was a holding date, and all those cases would be rescheduled. Now, November 29, 2019 is upon us. As such, I thought it might be nice to re-visit my blog post from back in 2015, when all this seemed a long way off (plus, it being Thanksgiving, I wasn’t much in the mood to write something new). Have things changed since 2015? You bet. But mostly for the worse, as there are now over one million cases in the Immigration Court backlog (in contrast to 2015, when there were about 456,000 cases in the backlog). Anyway, without further ado, here is my blog post from July 1, 2015–
Postcard from the Apocalypse: November 29, 2019
BEGIN TRANSMISSION:
If you’re reading this, maybe there’s still hope. Today is November 30, 2019. Dawn. Yesterday, the world came to an end.
This is how the Immigration Court backlog ends.
I am one of the few survivors. The very few. And I am sending this transmission back in time by Tachyon beam in a desperate attempt to avert the apocalypse and to save humanity. By my calculation, this message should be received in July 2015. Back then, in your present, it was not too late. Things could have—could still—turn out differently.
What happened? Nuclear war? Environmental degradation? Rapture? No. Such disasters, we could have dealt with. It was something at once more horrifying and more mundane. More innocent, yet more insidious. Small, yet massive. You get the idea.
“What was it, then?!” you plead. Listen well, my friend, and I will tell you the tale of November 29, 2019. On that day, the U.S. Immigration Court system collapsed upon itself, creating a singularity–a black hole, if you will–that absorbed everything in its path: First it took foreigners. No one seemed to mind. Then it took hippies, Libertarians, bachelorettes, and then people who enjoy listening to the Redirect immigration podcast (seriously, though, you should be listening to that). Finally, it took everyone and everything else. Now, all that’s left is me and a few others. We don’t have much time.
It all began innocently enough: Immigration Courts started scheduling a dozen or so aliens for hearings at the same time and place. Didn’t they know that this violates a basic law of physics and, as it turns out, a basic law of Immigration Court—No two aliens can occupy the same hearing space at the same time! Read your Archimedes, people! Isaac Newton! Anybody?
Oh, the powers-that-be at EOIR (the Executive Office for Immigration Review) didn’t think it was a big deal. They were violating the alien’s due process rights, but only a little. And it was for a good cause—efficiency, so what did it matter? But then they got arrogant. Master Calendar Hearings with 40, 50, 60 or more people. Half a dozen respondents on the same transcript, answering charges and conceding removability en masse. Due process protections eroding. But so slowly that no one noticed. The lawyers, the aliens, all of us became complacent. We let it happen.
And then things got worse. In 2014, Immigration Judges started scheduling scores, then hundreds, then thousands of aliens to appear on a single day—November 29, 2019. They claimed this was some sort of “holding” date; that the cases would be rescheduled. Lies! Instead of making the hard journey up Mt. Sinai to seek justice, they worshipped below at the idols of efficiency and budget cuts. Who sows the wind shall reap the whirlwind!
Before anyone really understood what was happening, tens of thousands of immigrants were scheduled to appear in Immigration Court on that fateful day, November 29, 2019 (may it be obliterated from memory). Throughout November, they gathered. They came by themselves or with their families. Small children without parents. Old people. People who had lived in the U.S. for years and people who were fresh off the hovercraft (hovercrafts were very popular in 2019). They filled the Immigration Court waiting rooms and spilled into the hallways. Masses of people, huddled together. Waiting. Soon, the court buildings were full, but still they came.
EOIR saw what was happening. They could have stopped the madness. They could have rescheduled the cases. But they didn’t. Why? Was it a conspiracy that reached to the highest levels of government? Or had some scheduling clerk gone rogue? I suppose we’ll never know, and anyway, it doesn’t much matter.
The more the foreigners gathered, the more they came. It was exponential, logarithmic, seismic. Soon, it wasn’t only people facing deportation. People with TPS started showing up. They were followed by conditional residents who were still married (miracle of miracles). Then there were people with valid visas, still in lawful status: B’s, TN’s, and L’s, Q’s and R’s, H1-B’s and E’s, all varieties of A’s and J’s, and even the odd I or C visa holder. I knew we were in trouble by the time the lawful permanent residents began showing up. And when U.S. citizens started arriving, it was clear that something terrible would happen.
And then it did. The collective gravity of all those people began feeding on itself, swallowing everything and everyone in its path–a black hole. But like I say, if you’re reading this, there’s still hope. There is a simple solution to the Immigration Court backlog. It’s so obvious, that it’s a wonder no one noticed it before. All you have to do is…
In an unexpected–but perhaps not surprising–move, the Asylum Division has canceled its Quarterly Engagement Meeting, which had been scheduled for November 14, 2019. This is the meeting where headquarters staff from the Asylum Division give updates and answer questions from stakeholders, such as non-profit organizations and lawyers like me.
Over the years, I’ve attended a number of these Engagement Meetings. They were helpful for several reasons. Most obviously, Asylum Division leaders answered written questions, which had to be submitted in advance, and also allowed us to ask questions and raise issues at the meetings themselves. The meetings provided an opportunity for us to meet Asylum Division leaders and for them to meet us. This type of human-to-human interaction is beneficial to both sides. We were able to see “the bureaucracy” and better understand their concerns, and they could directly hear from their constituents. As I see it, this type of communication and transparency is appropriate in any functioning democracy.
But now things have changed. And while it is disappointing that the Engagement Meeting has been canceled, it is not really surprising. The Trump Administration has been closing avenues of communication between government agencies and various stakeholders for some time. For example, EOIR–the Executive Office for Immigration Review–the office that oversees that nation’s Immigration Courts, has dramatically reduced the ability of its employees to communicate with people outside the agency. In my interview with the former Chief Immigration Judge, she notes that, “This change was touted as a way to streamline the Agency’s messaging system, but cutting off… communication is detrimental, and I think EOIR has been hampered by our inability to talk at different levels to stakeholders.” EOIR is also refusing to release data about its operations–data that was routinely made public in the past, and which helped us better understand how the system was operating. In addition, EOIR, DHS, and the Asylum Division have all been blocking their employees from speaking publicly, even to law students and at professional conferences. All this is harmful to students and professionals, who benefit from contact with public servants, but it is detrimental to the agencies as well, since they cannot hear directly from the people they serve or explain themselves to the advocacy community. Worse, their ability to recruit talented employees is hampered if they cannot communicate directly with people outside the government.
A live view of the Asylum Division meeting not taking place.
So as you can see, the Asylum Division’s decision to cancel the Engagement Meeting fits a wider pattern, but there may be other reasons behind the cancellation as well. The most obvious is a recent change in leadership. The long-time Director of the Asylum Division, John Lafferty, who normally chaired the Engagement Meetings, was forced out a few months ago. I met Mr. Lafferty several times, and I had (and still have) a high opinion of him: He tried to follow the law in the face of the Trump Administration’s assault on due process. Some lawyers I know felt he bent too far towards accommodating the Administration’s policies, but I saw him walking a difficult line and doing his duty to his superiors and to the law. He managed to keep the Asylum Division operating (more or less) despite the Administration’s machinations against it. According to news reports, Mr. Lafferty’s removal has further damaged morale at his agency–
The reassignment of John Lafferty… has caused consternation and fear among asylum officers and other USCIS officials, who worry that the administration is dead set on pushing forward with policies that may not always be legal or adequately researched…. “This is shocking and distressing news for the civil servants in the Asylum Division,” said [an unnamed] USCIS official. “A very sad day where an incredibly sophisticated, highly dedicated, and ethical leader is being removed from an important position in the agency.”
The new Director of the Asylum Division is Andrew Davidson, the former deputy associate director for USCIS’s Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate, the department that leads the agency’s “efforts to combat fraud, detect national security and public safety threats, and maximize law enforcement and Intelligence Community partnerships.” It seems likely that the choice of Mr. Davidson reflects the Trump Administration’s view that asylum claims are largely fraudulent, and so we will have to see where the Asylum Division goes under his leadership.
As the new Director, Mr. Davidson is in a position to continue or cancel the practice of holding Quarterly Engagement Meetings. The fact that the November 14th meeting–which would have been the first of his tenure–has been canceled, does not bode well. But perhaps since he is new to his role, he was not yet ready to engage with stakeholders, and meetings will resume once he settles in. Perhaps.
I myself was looking forward to the Engagement Meeting because I was hoping to hear answers to questions I submitted about how each Asylum Office was addressing its backlog. Whether USCIS will ever provide answers to these questions, I do not know. I reached out to them after I learned that the meeting was canceled, but I have not yet received a response.
I certainly hope the Asylum Division will resume the practice of holding public meetings. Whatever your feelings about asylum seekers and the asylum system, when government agencies close off avenues of communication and hide behind bureaucracy, it is bad for our democracy. It also begs the question: If the Asylum Division is so intent on cutting communication with us, what is it that they are trying to hide?
So, you’ve decided to file for asylum. Let’s talk about what happens on your journey as an affirmative asylum seeker.
Once you mail in the I-589 form, you should receive a receipt in about three or four weeks (though lately, this has been taking longer). After that, you and any dependent family members will be scheduled for a biometric appointment, where the government will take your fingerprints and your photo. For the biometric appointment, each person should bring their appointment letter and a photo ID, usually a passport.
Next, you will have an interview. Some Asylum Offices are faster than others, so in some cases, you will only wait a few weeks or months for your interview; in other cases, you may wait years. If you do not receive an interview within about 90 days of filing, you can be pretty confident that your case is in the backlog. Currently, there are well over 300,000 cases in the affirmative asylum backlog, and most new cases seem to end up in the backlog.
A computer determines at random who will get an asylum interview.
Why does one applicant land in the backlog while another receives an interview relatively quickly? My understanding from talking to my local Asylum Office Director is that it is completely dependent on luck. It does not matter what country you come from, or how strong your case is. It does not matter whether or not you have a lawyer. The Asylum Office staff determines how many interview slots they have for a given day, and a computer randomly chooses which cases, from the pool of newly-filed LIFO cases, will be interviewed.
If you end up in the backlog, how long will you wait? No one knows. The government does not know. The people working at the Asylum Office do not know. And I certainly don’t know. The basic reason for the backlog is that there are too many asylum cases and too few Asylum Officers. The Asylum Division has been trying to “staff up” for some time, and they are having some success. As more Officers come online, we might see progress on the backlog. Also, as you may have heard, the Trump Administration is working overtime to block asylum seekers from coming to the U.S. If there are fewer asylum seekers, we could also see progress on the backlog. Despite all this effort, the backlog continues to grow.
If your case falls into the backlog, there are a few things you can do. You can try to expedite the case. This is not easy, and even people with a strong reason to expedite are often rejected. The best reasons to expedite are where the applicant has a health problem or there is family separation, especially if the family members are unsafe. Even if you do not have a strong reason to expedite, you can still try–once in a while, applicants get lucky. Also, some offices have a short list. This is usually a long list of people who have agreed to accept an interview on short notice if there happens to be an opening. Putting your name on the short list will not necessarily get you a faster interview, but it might. You can contact your local office to find out whether they have a short list. If you put your name on the short list, make sure that all the evidence is submitted, so you are ready to go in case you get called. Attempting to expedite or put your name on the short list will never make your case slower–either it will be faster or there will be no effect.
If you do not get an interview, or if you do get an interview and there is no decision, you may be eligible for an employment authorization document (“EAD”), which allows you to work legally in the United States. You cannot file for your EAD immediately. Instead, you have to wait 150 days after the I-589 form is received by the government (the “received” date is listed on your receipt). Do not file before the 150th day, or the EAD application could be rejected as filed too early. Also, if you cause a delay in your case (by missing a government appointment, for example), or if you have certain criminal convictions, you may be ineligible for the EAD. Check the EAD instructions for more information. If you do not have an EAD, you cannot work lawfully in the U.S. Even the receipt for the initial EAD does not allow you to work. People who work unlawfully are not precluded from receiving asylum, but unauthorized employment could block you from other immigration benefits. When you file for the EAD, you can request a Social Security card on the same form.
Once you have an EAD, it is valid for two years. You can renew an expiring EAD up to 180 days before the old card expires. When you receive your receipt to renew, your old EAD will be extended by 180 days. Renewals can take a while, so it is a good idea to file the renewal soon after you are eligible.
While your case is pending, you can apply for Advance Parole (“AP”), so you can travel outside the United States and return. USCIS does not always approve AP, and sometimes, they only grant it for a short period of time, but if you have it, it acts like a U.S. visa. You still need to use your passport to travel, and this can create issues for asylum seekers, especially those who fear harm from the same government that issued the passport. And of course, asylum seekers should not return to the country of feared persecution, as that could kaibosh your asylum case.
Also, while your case is pending, if you move, you need to file a form to change your address. Depending where you move, this could cause your case to be transferred to a different Asylum Office. If the case moves to a new office, it should not cause additional delay and should be treated as if it were originally filed in the new office.
What if you do get an interview, but there is no decision? The most common reason for post-interview delay is the security background check, but there could be other reasons as well. You can contact the Asylum Office directly to ask about the delay, or you can ask your Congressperson or Senator to do that for you. You can also seek assistance from the DHS Ombudsman’s office, which can sometimes help with delayed cases. None of these approaches seems very effective to me, but there is no harm in trying. If all else fails, you might consider a mandamus lawsuit. This is where you sue the Asylum Office and ask a federal judge to force them to issue a decision.
In the end, you will either be granted asylum, or your application will be rejected. If you are rejected, there are two choices: If you are no longer in lawful status in the U.S., you will be referred to an Immigration Judge, who will review your case and issue a new, independent decision. If you are still lawfully present in the U.S., you will receive a Notice of Intent to Deny, be given an opportunity to respond, and if the Asylum Office still cannot approve the case, they will issue a final denial. In that case, you are expected to leave the U.S. when your lawful period of stay ends, but you can re-file asylum (the process is different – check the I-589 instructions) or you can seek other ways to remain here.
So that is the affirmative asylum process in a nutshell. The system is a mess, and it is helpful to know that before you begin. Perhaps this knowledge will make the process a bit easier to endure.
If online reviews of Asylum Officer (“AO”) jobs are to be believed, our nation’s AOs are not doing well. They are overworked, fearful of losing their jobs, and unhappy with management.
Now, I know what you’re thinking – online reviews are not reliable. I agree. My feeling is that anyone who spends 20 minutes reviewing shampoo is not the type of person I want to take advice from–about shampoo or anything else. And so, it is important to take these reviews with a big grain of salt: They are written by anonymous people and we have no way of verifying their claims or knowing whether they have ulterior motives. Online reviews also tend to be written by people who are unhappy about something, and so I imagine that happy AOs are less likely to post a review than unhappy ones. Nevertheless, after looking at about a dozen detailed reviews online and checking with my inside source, I feel pretty confident that these reviews were posted by actual AOs and that they are generally reflective of the situation in our nation’s Asylum Offices.
The website with the AO reviews is called Glassdoor, which bills itself as “one of the world’s largest job and recruiting sites.” Apparently, the negative reviews caught the attention of management and caused a bit of a stir at the Asylum Office. You can see about a dozen AO job reviews here and one more here. Most of the reviews give the AO job one star out of five. The best review gives three stars and the average is 1.6 stars. By comparison, the Glassdoor page for USCIS gives jobs at the agency an overall rating of 3.3 (and this number would be higher if we could factor out AO reviews, which are included with all the other USCIS reviews).
A typical Asylum Officer, pictured here after submitting her resignation.
Glassdoor breaks down the reviews into Pros and Cons, and has a section for Advice to Management. Let’s start with some positives. The two most common Pros listed by AOs are health insurance/benefits and that you have the ability to help people. However, even many of the Pros are qualified positives. Here are some Pros from two different AOs–
The Asylum Division has some of the smartest, most dedicated employees. Asylum Officers are highly educated and they are by far some of the most competent people working in the federal government. Many Asylum Officers have taken demotions and pay cuts to work as an Asylum Officer. Also, the cooperation among the Asylum Officers is exemplary. Asylum Officers work very well with each other as they can relate to each other’s pain and suffering while trying to learn this job and keep up with unrealistic demands by management.
You may get an office to yourself, with all the paper clips and staplers all setup for you because whoever you are replacing left in a hurry. You get a first hand horrific glimpse into how tax dollars are wasted, and a lesson in labor law and union “representation”, due to the gross mismanagement and brutalizing egos of socially awkward and millennial minded supervisors and directors. you won’t have to rent horror movies anymore, because you’ll be living in one.
Yes, those are the Pros. The Cons include poor management, an overwhelming case load, high turnover, unrealistic expectations, and working extra hours without pay. Here are some quotes from AOs about the negative aspects of their job. Trigger Warning: These ain’t pretty–
The current White House Administration would love for you to not exist.
The time provided to do interviews, update systems, and write up cases [is] insufficient and forces Asylum Officers to engage in unpaid overtime. If you get a backlog of cases, you may be written up and I have [known] people to [be] fired for having a backlog…. The IT systems Asylum Officers use is 40 years old. This makes doing the job very hard.
The workload is extremely unrealistic. You are expected to read your cases, conduct security checks, prep paperwork, call interpreters, interview 4 people, document miscellaneous items, and then write up your decisions in an 8 hr. day.
Too many [Cons] to list. All around awful experience. This place will be a stain on your professional record.
If we were to use one word to describe the Asylum Division’s conduct toward its employees it would be: abusive. The new PPA [performance evaluation] added another layer to this conduct. The Asylum program’s number one management tool in dealing with Asylum Officers is distilling fear; fear of not interviewing fast enough, fear of not writing up the cases fast enough, fear of not satisfying some of the supervisors, and most importantly, fear of the new PPA. Fear, fear, fear; almost nothing, but fear. So, if you want your career to be driven by meeting unrealistic expectations by fear, becoming an Asylum Officer would be the perfect choice for you.
If you already have experience in the field of immigration, this is CAREER SUICIDE. Supervisors (Who routinely have no experience in it) will resent you and make your life hell…. The supervisors are grossly incompetent, and will SET YOU UP to FAIL, and spend their time undermining your work, instead of actually helping to address the issue of THEIR failing procedures…. Supervisors and directors wholly operate with malicious intent and gross neglect in regards to the purpose of the agency, and are only concerned with getting a higher grade level and feathering their own nests. There is NO ACCOUNTABILITY whatsoever, from the supervisors, to the directors. The management at the asylum office ruins lives, and not just those of the applicants. OIG [Office of the Inspector General] needs to investigate management, bring charges and overhaul this agency.
Management is grossly incompetent, back-stabbing, insulting, treat you like kids in a summer camp and many are 2nd-tier law school graduates that couldn’t make it as a lawyer or even a government attorney for the family court, district court or any court…. You listen to stories of torture and persecution and unlike… any other government organizations, where time is built in to deal with 2nd-hand psychological trauma, you are told to “make sure you take care of yourself.” WITH WHAT TIME? … If you don’t churn out the number of cases that they want and keep in mind this is with the constant ramp-up, month after month[, you] will be terminated and your personal record will reflect that you were terminated. Do not take this job unless your rent is due, you have exhausted all your financial resources and you have no other government prospects. If you mis-step, you will NOT have a career in the government.
stunning incompetence and bad faith decisions at ALL levels of management, from the supervisors to the directors…. extremely low morale and toxic work environment.
Yikes. But there’s more. Here’s what some of the AOs had to say for Advice to Management–
If your department is turning over at 40% to 50% a year, it’s not that the work is too hard, it’s because you and those above you are lacking in the ability to establish a process with integrity, fairness and nurturance.
I have no advice. RAIO [Refugee, Asylum and International Operations] USCIS Management knows there is high turnover and does not care. They can simply hire more people. My advice is to the US Congress and GAO. You need to know what is going on in RAIO Asylum and make changes.
Lower the interview amount to 3 assigned cases a day, offer economic incentives to people who can do more in a day.
Adjust allotted times for interviewing and writing assessments.
How do you live with yourselves? Turn yourselves in before you make things even worse. You’re really, really bad at your jobs.
Advice to lawmakers: Someone should look into what is going on in the Asylum Division and stop the questionable labor practices.
Realize it’s not YOUR personal agency to make up the rules how you want. Seek therapy, get a life coach, and get a reality check: the younger officers who laugh at all your awkward jokes, and oblige your antics at forced weekly meetings where you give yourselves awards for a job well done (not making that up), don’t actually like you or agree with you at all. they are just afraid to lose their jobs. look into the actual work you are supposed to be supervising, don’t imitate the behaviors of the corrupt governments that the applicants are running from. morale is at an all time low, numbers are at an all time low, and you seem happy to make it worse. if you are getting a sense you are really bad at your job, move on to an agency or a do nothing federal position where you will do less harm.
Oy Vey. Again, we need to read the above comments skeptically, since dissatisfied people may be more likely to post negative reviews. Nevertheless, all this points to some real issues at the Asylum Offices.
As for solutions, there is no easy fix, particularly in the current environment, and I doubt we will see any improvement soon. The Director of the Asylum Division for the last six years was recently forced out. The new Acting Director was moved to his current position from the USCIS fraud detection section. How he will manage the agency’s problems, we shall see, but he faces a fundamental and perhaps unresolvable challenge: While the Administration wants to block all asylum seekers regardless of the law, the AOs themselves are sworn to follow the law. As long as management is pressuring AOs and their immediate supervisors to ignore the law, it is hard to imagine how working conditions will improve. And of course, all this affects asylum seekers in terms of worse decisions and longer delays.
The only hopeful note here is that AOs seem to be pushing back against the Administration’s worst excesses. But these only represents part of the problem, as issues at the Asylum Offices long pre-date Mr. Trump. Whether the bureaucracy can save us, I do not know, but as long as AOs continue to do their jobs and follow the law–even under difficult conditions–there is still hope for our nation’s asylum system.
Earlier this month, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) issued a news release touting its accomplishments for FY 2019, which ended on September 30, 2019 (a belated Happy FY 2020 to all!). According to the agency, “FY 2019 has been a historic year for USCIS and we have achieved many of President Trump’s goals to make our immigration system work better for America.” Here, we’ll take a look at some of USCIS’s “accomplishments” and explore what that means for asylum seekers.
First, I can’t help but note the hostility towards Congress and towards asylum seekers expressed in the news release and by Acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli. Here are a couple quotes—
In the face of congressional inaction, we’ve taken significant steps to mitigate the loopholes in our asylum system, combat fraudulent claims and strengthen the protections we have in place to preserve humanitarian assistance for those truly in need of it.
Absent congressional action to provide targeted fixes to our immigration system, USCIS rushed personnel and resources to our southern border and implemented a number of significant policy changes and reforms designed to help reduce the loopholes in our nation’s asylum system that allowed for crisis levels of abuse and exploitation.
USCIS is correct that Congress has failed to pass comprehensive (or partial) immigration reform, which has been sorely needed for years. However, to blame only Congress, without considering the erratic leadership (or lack thereof) from the Executive Branch looks like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Also, USCIS again points to “loopholes” and “crisis levels of abuse and exploitation” without specifying what that means. Clearly, the Acting Director wants to deter asylum seekers from coming here, but that is a separate question from whether asylum seekers themselves are exploiting loopholes or abusing the system.
In anticipation of more e-filing, USCIS has added extra hard drives to its computer.
USCIS points to two major policy reforms for FY 2019. The first is the Migrant Protection Protocols (“MPP”), which were designed to stop asylum seekers from “attempting to game the immigration system.” Again, evidence that anyone is “gaming the system” is lacking. “Under MPP, aliens attempting to enter the U.S. from Mexico without proper documentation may be returned to Mexico to wait outside of the U.S. during their immigration proceedings.” Sadly, the MPP has done real damage to our asylum system and to our nation’s moral standing. The program has forced thousands of people to wait in tents in Mexico, where they are subject to violence and extortion at the hands of cartels, which have a powerful presence near the border. Also under the MPP, asylum seekers are routinely and blatantly denied due process of law.
The other major policy reform is the Third Country Transit Asylum Rule, which is designed to–
enhance the integrity of the asylum process by placing further restrictions or limitations on eligibility for aliens who seek asylum in the United States. Specifically, with limited exceptions, the rule bars aliens, who entered along the southern border, from receiving asylum in the U.S. if they did not apply for asylum in at least one other country they transited through. This rule aims to mitigate the crisis at the border by better identifying and serving legitimate asylum seekers.
Like the MPP, this rule degrades (and arguably violates) our asylum system by forcing asylum seekers who arrive at the Southern border to file for asylum in a country that they pass through on the way to the U.S. This might be fine if the countries in question were safe and had operating asylum systems of their own, but for the most part, they aren’t and they don’t. What I find most offensive about this pronouncement, though, is the last part–the claim that the policy “aims to mitigate the crisis at the border by better identifying and serving legitimate asylum seekers.” It does no such thing. Instead, the rule arbitrary seeks to block all asylum seekers by forcing them to seek protection in third countries. There is no effort to distinguish legitimate asylum seekers from those who are somehow not legitimate (whatever that means). Why USCIS can’t simply say this, and be honest about their goal of making asylum more difficult for everyone, I do not know.
The news release also gives us some statistics. “In FY 2019, the Asylum Division received more than 105,000 credible fear cases – over 5,000 more than in FY 2018 and a new record high.” A credible fear interview or CFI is an initial evaluation of asylum eligibility. People who arrive at a border or an airport and request asylum receive a CFI. If they “pass,” they are referred to an Immigration Judge for a full asylum hearing. If they “fail,” they are removed from the U.S. The fact that USCIS performed a record number of CFIs signals that the government’s deterrent efforts are not working. If people were being deterred from coming to the U.S. for asylum, we should see lower numbers of CFIs.
Another statistic relates to hiring–
In FY 2019, USCIS executed an ambitious plan to hire 500 staff for the Asylum Division by the end of December 2019 to reach authorized staffing levels. New strategies are in development to more specifically target individuals with relevant experience and skill sets, including those with prior military and law enforcement expertise.
The Asylum Division has been “staffing up” for probably half a dozen years, and whether they expect to actually achieve their goal this time, they do not say. If so, this could help reduce the asylum backlog, which would be good news. On the other hand, the idea that they are recruiting people with “law enforcement expertise” rather than human rights experience, points to the type of candidate they may be seeking.
Also in FY 2019, the “Asylum Division trained and deployed U.S. Border Patrol agents and USCIS officers from outside the Asylum Division to supplement staffing on the southern border and assist with the Asylum Division’s workload.” Whether Border Patrol agents and USCIS officers have the training necessary to properly do Asylum Division work is an open question, and is an issue of concern for advocates. I personally have my doubts. But on the positive side, I suppose it will free up “real” Asylum Officers to do more affirmative cases.
Finally, the news release discusses some plans for FY 2020. One point of interest for asylum seekers is that USCIS plans to continue the transition to on-line filing, and will make it possible to e-file the I-589 asylum form. If done properly, this would be a great benefit to asylum seekers, since it would make filing easier and more reliable, and would hopefully avoid the problem of USCIS losing documents, which has been a big issue in the past. Given all the bad news from USCIS, let’s end here, with happy thoughts of e-filing in FY 2020.
MaryBeth Keller was the Chief Immigration Judge of the United States from September 2016 until July 2019. She was the first woman to hold that position. The Asylumist sat down with her to discuss her career, her tenure as CIJ, and her hope for the future of the Immigration Courts.
Asylumist: Tell us about your career. How did you get to be the Chief Immigration Judge of the United States?
Judge Keller: I was appointed to the position by Attorney General Loretta Lynch in 2016. By that time, I had been at EOIR (the Executive Office for Immigration Review) for 28 years, and had a lot of experience with and knowledge of the entire organization, especially the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (“OCIJ”) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).
After law school at the University of Virginia, I clerked for state court judges in Iowa. I wanted to return to DC, and in those days – the late 1980s – there were a lot of options. I submitted my resume to a federal government database and was selected to interview at the BIA for a staff attorney position (they liked the fact that I had taken an immigration law class with Professor David Martin at UVA). At the interview, I knew it would be an incredible job. The BIA is the highest level administrative body in immigration law, and the people I met seemed happy to be there. I thought I would stay maybe two years and then move on, but I ended up remaining with EOIR for 31 years.
MaryBeth Keller
I was at the BIA for about 15 years, nine of those as a manager. In my early days as a staff attorney, I helped revitalize the BIA union, which was basically defunct when I arrived. Some employees had wanted to simply decertify the union, but a colleague and I convinced the majority of attorneys and staff that it could be a useful organization, so they voted to keep it. I was the union president for several years. After I later became a manager, my colleagues joked that my penance for having led the BIA union was to have to deal with the union from the other side. I helped then-Chairman Paul Schmidt revamp and restructure the BIA in the mid-1990s.
From there, I served as EOIR’s General Counsel and was involved with many reforms, including the institution of the first fraud program and a program to address complaints about the conduct of Immigration Judges. This ultimately led to my appointment as the first Assistant Chief Immigration Judge (“ACIJ”) for Conduct and Professionalism (“C&P”). At the time, David Neal was the Chief Immigration Judge, and we built the C&P program from whole cloth. In addition to responsibility for judge conduct, performance, and disciplinary issues, I supervised courts from headquarters and was the management representative to the judges’ union. All of this experience led to me to the position of Chief Judge.
Asylumist: What does the CIJ do? How is that position different from the EOIR Director or General Counsel?
Judge Keller: I view the CIJ’s job as leading the trial level immigration courts to execute the mission of EOIR, including, most importantly, managing the dockets to best deliver due process. In practical terms, this involved hiring and training judges and staff, determining the supervisory structure of the courts, directing the management team of Deputies, ACIJs, and Court Administrators, overseeing the Headquarters team that supports the field, including an administrative office, a business development team, legal advisers, an organizational results unit, and an interpreters unit. The CIJ also collaborates with the other senior executives such as the Chairman of the BIA, the General Counsel, and the Director of Administration to coordinate agency activities on a broader scale. In years past, the CIJ acted as a high-level liaison with counterparts in DHS, the private bar, and other governmental and nongovernmental groups.
The regulations–specifically 8 C.F.R. 1003.9–describe the function of the CIJ. I kept a copy of that regulation on my wall. The regulations set forth the CIJ’s authority to issue operational instructions and policy, provide for training of the immigration judges and other staff, set priorities or time frames for the resolution of cases, and manage the docket of matters to be decided by the immigration judges.
Despite the regulation, under the current Administration, much of the CIJ’s, authority has been assumed by the Director’s Office or the newly created Office of Policy. Court operational instructions, court policy, the provision of training, setting priorities and time frames for case disposition, and many other matters are now being performed by the EOIR Director’s Office, with minimal input from the CIJ and OCIJ management. I do recognize the regulation setting forth the authority of the Director, as well as the fact that the CIJ’s authority is subject to the Director’s supervision. However, reliance on career employees and specifically the career senior executives (Senior Executive Service or SES) at the head of each EOIR component is significantly diminished now. I believe that is compromising the effectiveness of EOIR as a whole. Senior Executives have leadership skills and incredible institutional knowledge and experience that should bridge that gap between policy and operations. They should be a part of developing the direction of the agency and its structure to most effectively accomplish its functions, but are instead largely sidelined and relegated to much more perfunctory tasks. I worry that people with valuable skills will not be satisfied with decreased levels of responsibility, and will leave the agency. This will make it more difficult for EOIR to meet the challenges it is facing.
To answer the question as to how the CIJ position is different from the Director and General Counsel, the EOIR Director manages all the components of the Agency (BIA, OCIJ, Administration, and OGC) and reports to the Deputy Attorney General. The EOIR General Counsel provides legal and other advice to the EOIR component heads and the Director.
Asylumist: What were your goals and accomplishments as CIJ? Is there anything you wanted to do but could not get done?
Judge Keller: I was fortunate to serve as the CIJ at a time of many changes: Hiring an unprecedented number of IJs, finally beginning to implement electronic filing, and creating new ways to effectively complete cases. At the same time, we faced challenges, such as the ever-changing prioritization of certain types of cases, an increased focus on speed of adjudication, and the creation of the new Office of Policy within the agency, which was given far-reaching authority.
Amid these changes, one of my goals was to use my experience at the agency and my credibility to reassure judges and staff that, despite any changes, our mission of delivering fair hearings and fair decisions would remain unchanged. I always told new classes of judges that their primary responsibility was to conduct fair hearings and make fair decisions. Due process is what we do. And if we don’t get that right, we are not fulfilling the mission of the immigration court. I had the sense that my presence as CIJ gave people some level of security that we were holding on to that mission during all of the change.
Another goal was to hire more staff. I thought I would have more control over hiring and court management than I ultimately did. In terms of hiring, while we greatly increased the number of IJs, it is important to remember that IJs cannot function without support staff: Court administrators, legal assistants, clerks, interpreters, and others. The ratio is about 1-5, judges to support staff. Our hope was also to have one law clerk per IJ and we made some major progress in that regard. It might be wiser for EOIR to take a breather from hiring more judges and focus on hiring support staff, because that is imperative for the court to function. Overall, I was not able to prioritize staff hiring as I would have liked, nor was I confident that my office’s input had much impact on hiring decisions.
Aside from hiring many more judges, some of the positive changes we made while I was there included implementing shortened oral decisions–we do not need a 45-page decision in every case. Shorter decisions, where appropriate, are vital to increasing efficiency. We also encouraged more written decisions. It seems counterintuitive, but written decisions can actually be more efficient than oral decisions. If you have the written material available, as well as law clerks, and the administrative time to review the decision, written decisions save the time that would be spent delivering the oral decision and that time can be used for additional hearings. For this purpose, we greatly increased the accessibility of legal resources for both judges and staff through the development of a highly detailed and searchable user-friendly electronic database of caselaw, decisions, and other reference material.
Importantly, we were also working on ways to replace the standard scheduling based on Individual and Master Calendar Hearings. Instead, in a manner more like other courts, we would schedule cases according to the particular needs of the case, including creating, for example, a motions docket, a bond docket, a short-matters docket. Cases would be sent to certain dockets depending on what issues needed to be addressed, and then move through the process as appropriate from there. Different judges might work on one case, depending on what was needed. During the course of this process, many cases would resolve at the earliest possible point, and some would fall out–people leave the country, they obtain other relief, etc. But in the meantime, such cases would not have taken up a normally-allotted four hour Individual Calendar hearing block in the IJ’s schedule. We were looking to do at least three things: Secure a certain trial date at the start of proceedings, allot time judiciously to each matter, and reduce the time between hearings. If the immigration courts could successfully transition to this model, it would improve the timeliness and rate of completion of final decisions.
While I was CIJ, we also looked to see how other courts dealt with issues such as technology. For example, we went to see the electronic systems at the Fairfax County, Virginia court. That system is more advanced than EOIR’s, and it would, for example, allow a judge to give advisals that are simultaneously translated into different languages for different listeners. This would eliminate the time it takes to do individual advisals, without sacrificing the face-to-face time with the judge. We also investigated video remote interpreting, which is having the interpreter in the courtroom via video, so everyone can see and hear each other as if they were in the same place. IT infrastructure to properly support such initiatives is very expensive, but is obviously currently available and used by other court systems. Changes like improving the interpretation system and implementing e-filing and a user friendly electronic processing system would make a profound difference in how the courts operate.
I believe that some of these ideas are still being considered, but the problem is that there does not seem to be much patience for changes that are not a quick fix. I had hoped to move things further than we were able to, but we did make progress as I discussed.
As another example of a positive accomplishment, EOIR is now very effectively using more contractors for administrative support. This was started by Juan Osuna when he was Director of EOIR, and it has been highly successful. Because our growth has been so rapid, contract employees allow us to get top-notch people quickly, and gives us the flexibility to easily replace someone whose performance is not up to speed. Contractors are not a substitute for permanent employees, but can bridge the gap between a vacancy and a new hire. Once contractors have some experience, they can apply for permanent positions and by then, we have good knowledge of their skills and can hire experienced workers.
Finally, a major accomplishment was that I was the first female Chief Immigration Judge. Even though my experience was extensive, I still had to fight to get the job, including nine hours of interviews. At the time, I think I underestimated how much the workplace was still unaccustomed to women in particular positions. The emails I received after I left the job were astounding. Men and women alike wrote to tell me how much it meant to them to have a female CIJ.
Asylumist: How did things at EOIR change between the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration?
Judge Keller: Things now are unlike any time in the past. As I think we have been seeing throughout government during this Administration, the difference seems to be that there is now a fundamental distrust of people and organizations in the federal government. Over three decades, I have worked through a variety of administrations at all points on the political spectrum. Long-time federal employees are very accustomed to altering course when new administrations come in, whether or not the political parties change. Many employees and executives like me welcomed change as an opportunity to move their organizations forward and make the delivery of their services better. But if those in political power do not trust their subordinates and the functions of the agencies they run, it’s a very different and difficult scenario.
Some of the “small p” political pressure was happening by the end of the Obama Administration. For example, we saw this with children’s cases and the instruction we received from Justice Department leaders in political positions to prioritize those cases on our dockets. Still, in that instance, once the political goal was set, the best way to accomplish the goal, and even its ongoing feasibility, was largely left to senior staff in the agency with operational expertise to implement or to ultimately advise superiors that a different course of action might be needed. Now, very often both the political and the operational decisions down to the smallest details are dictated from above. For example, even my emails and communications to staff were edited from above. Aside from the very questionable advisability of having operational determinations made by persons with no operational expertise, this approach subjects the court process to claims that it is not neutrally deciding cases but instead deciding cases in the manner that political leaders would like.
Until recently, I had never really thought very hard about an Article I court for immigration cases. I thought that the line between politics and neutral adjudication was being walked. There was no major concern from my perspective about EOIR managers navigating that line. Now, the level of impact of political decisions is so extraordinary that I wonder whether we do need to remove the immigration courts from the Department of Justice. I’ve just started to seriously consider the validity of this idea and I need to do more research and thinking about it. The American Bar Association’s recommendations are very persuasive and of significant interest to me. Before, I would not have thought it necessary.
Of course, moving the Immigration Courts to Article I status would not solve all our problems, but it could free us from some of the questions that have been raised over the years about politicized hiring, how cases are being politically prioritized, and whether that is appropriate for a court.
Another large change came in our ability to talk to those we serve. To best function, you have to talk to stakeholders on both sides: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the private bar/respondents. This used to be standard procedure in past administrations, and it was done at both the upper and ground levels. Recently, such conversations were much more limited, and took place primarily at higher levels, often above my position and that of my Deputies. This change was touted as a way to streamline the Agency’s messaging system, but cutting off other forms of communication is detrimental, and I think EOIR has been hampered by our inability to talk at different levels to stakeholders.
We previously had a great relationship with the American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”). For example, when I was working on conduct and professionalism for Immigration Judges, AILA was a great help. At the time, AILA’s message was the same as our message (poor conduct of adjudicators and representatives should be addressed), and we successfully partnered for a long time. Similarly, the CIJ previously had regular interactions with DHS’s Principal Legal Advisor and others in the DHS management chain, but that is no longer the case. Another change to the management structure that I believe was ill-advised was abolishing the “portfolio” ACIJs who bore targeted responsibility for several very important subjects to immigration court management: Judge conduct and professionalism, training, and vulnerable populations. In my experience, having officials whose specialized function was to oversee programs in these areas increased the integrity, accessibility, credibility, and efficiency of the court.
Asylumist: While you were CIJ, EOIR implemented quotas. IJs are now supposed to complete 700 cases per year. Can you comment on this?
Judge Keller: Many different court systems have performance goals and I am generally in favor of those. But the question is, How do you establish and implement them? Are you consulting the managers and IJs about it? How do you come up with the goals? Should they be uniform across the courts? The current requirements were not developed by me or my management team. Numeric expectations alone are not going to fix things. Timeliness is more important in my view than specific numbers. Moreover, the way that the emphasis is being placed on these numbers now sends the wrong message to both the parties and our judges and court staff. Also, court staff and stakeholders would more likely buy into such a change if they understood how the goal was developed, and why. My experience is that IJs are generally over-achievers and they want to do well and will meet or exceed any goals you set. In my view, completing 700 cases may be an appropriate expectation for some judges and dockets, and might be too high or even too low for others. Courts, dockets, and cases are vastly different from the southern border to the Pacific Northwest to the bigger cities, so I’m not sure about a one-size-fits-all approach.
Asylumist: What about the Migrant Protection Protocols (“MPP”), also known as the Remain in Mexico policy. Can you comment on the effectiveness or efficacy of this program?
Judge Keller: The MPP began right before I left EOIR. In the MPP, as with all dockets, the role of the immigration court is simply to hear and resolve the cases that DHS files, but there were and still are, many legal and procedural concerns about the program. For example, what is the status of a person when they come across the border for their hearing, are they detained or not? Also, there were significant practical considerations. If you bring people across the border and plan to use trailers or tents for hearings, you need lines for IT equipment, air conditioning, water, bathrooms, etc. All that needs to be taken care of well in advance and is a huge undertaking. My impression of the MPP was that it was a political policy decision, which, even if an appropriate DHS exercise, is evidence of how asking the court to prioritize political desires impacts the overall efficiency of the court. The resources it required us to commit in terms of planning, and the resources it took away from the remaining existing caseload will likely contribute to further delay in other cases.
Asylumist: According to press reports, you and two other senior EOIR officials–all three of you women–were forced out in June 2019. What happened? Why did you leave?
Judge Keller: Unless there is something I don’t know about my two colleagues, none of us was forced out. I was not. We could have stayed in our same roles if we had chosen to do so. At the same time, I would not necessarily say that our departures were completely coincidental. I do know that the nature of our jobs had changed considerably.
For me, the previous level of responsibility was no longer there, and I did not have the latitude to lead the OCIJ workforce. My experience and management skills were not being used and I was mostly implementing directives. Any time three experienced, high-level executives depart an agency, there should be cause for concern. The fact that we were all women certainly raises a question, but EOIR has always been pretty progressive in that regard. Nevertheless, appropriate equal respect for women in the workplace is something that unfortunately still needs attention everywhere.
Leaving EOIR was a hard decision for me to make, and I think it was a big loss for EOIR that all three of us chose to exit.
The politicization of the court was also a concern for me. Historically, the Director of EOIR was always a career SES appointee, not a political SES. I viewed that as critically important, symbolically and practically, for a court system, especially one like the immigration court within the Executive Branch. Director James McHenry is in a career Senior Executive position. However, his path to the position was through the new Administration, which had detailed him from his position as a relatively new Administrative Law Judge to Main DOJ as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for a while before he became the Director. It appears that the large majority of his career otherwise was at DHS in non-managerial positions.
Successfully overseeing or managing an organization the size of EOIR with all of its challenges today would be difficult even for a seasoned executive with a lot of management experience.
The question at this time for EOIR is, How does your mission of fair adjudication of immigration cases fit within the broader immigration goals of the government? It takes deft and nuanced management to ensure the integrity of a court of independent decision-makers while maintaining responsiveness to political leaders. A good manager listens to people with expertise and is skilled at motivating others, getting the most from each employee, developing well-thought-out operational plans to reach policy goals, and even changing course if necessary. Under Director McHenry, the advice of the agency’s career executives was often not even solicited, and did not appear to be valued. His approach caused many to question the soundness of his operational decisions, and his commitment to the mission of the court, as opposed to accommodating the prosecutorial goals of DHS. I didn’t think there was as much focus on improving how we heard cases, as there was on meeting numeric goals and adjusting to the priorities of the DHS.
Asylumist: The BIA recently added six new members. All are sitting IJs and all had lower than average asylum approval rates. Do you know how these IJs were selected? What was the process?
Judge Keller: This was stunning. I can’t imagine that the pool of applicants was such that only IJs would be hired, including two from the same city. I think IJs are generally eminently qualified to be Board Members, but to bring in all six from the immigration court? I’d like to think that the pool of applicants was more diverse than that. At both the courts and the BIA, we used to get applicants for judge positions from academia, the private sector, BIA, and other governmental entities. More recently, we also had experienced judges and adjudicators from various other administrative systems, the military, and state and local courts applying to be IJs. I find these recent BIA hires to be very unusual.
I do not know the process for selection, but suspect that Board Chairman David Neal* had minimal input into these hires. I find this scenario very odd.
* Note: Since this interview took place, the Chairman of the BIA, David Neal, left his position and retired from the federal government. Before serving as Chairman of the BIA, David Neal held many other leadership positions at EOIR over many years, including the Vice-Chairman of the BIA and Chief Immigration Judge.
Asylumist: EOIR has made some moves to decertify the IJ union. Do you know why? What do you think about this?
Judge Keller: This happened after I left, but of course, it is easier to run an organization without people questioning you. Good managers recognize that you want opposing viewpoints. Maybe I am biased because I was a union officer, but I was also a manager longer than I was a union leader, and I’ve seen both sides. When I first learned that attorneys and judges were unionized, I was surprised, but I have seen the value of that. As a manager, the union is a great source of information. There are inherent conflicts between management and any union, but the union often has goals similar to those of management. The relationship between a union and management must be carefully developed, managed, and maintained. In the end, I felt it was worth the extra effort.
Now, I think management is more comfortable without public questions. I think decertifying is a mistake, particularly now when there are so many other changes that demand focus.
Asylumist: When he was Attorney General, Jeff Sessions gave a speech to EOIR where he claimed that most asylum cases were fake. This is also a line we frequently hear from the Trump Administration. What was your opinion of that speech?
Judge Keller: I think you may be referring to a press conference the Attorney General held at EOIR in October 2017. In a speech that day, the Attorney General said that the asylum system was “subject to rampant abuse and fraud.” That was disheartening. Fraud is not a factor in the large majority of cases. We know about fraud and we have been dealing with it probably since the inception of the immigration court. But it is not true that overwhelming numbers of asylum seekers are coming to immigration court trying to fraudulently obtain benefits. Whether the majority of their claims ultimately lack merit is a different question. But it is the very fact that we have a robust system to examine and decide asylum claims that makes our country a role model to others. I do not think statements like that made by the Attorney General are helpful to the court’s credibility. If IJs had that speech in mind in court, they would be labeled as biased, and bias is not a good thing for a judge or a court.
For the current Administration, I think there is an underlying skepticism about the extent to which the system is being manipulated. The process is indeed imperfect. But if you think that there are inappropriate “loopholes,” then we need to fix the law or the process. That is why comprehensive, or at least extensive, immigration reform has been discussed for so long. The Attorney General articulated some potential improvements he wanted to make, but also unfortunately focused in that speech on fraud and abuse, as if it was a problem greater than I believe it is.
When I would give my speech to new IJs, I would tell them that they would see the best and the worst of human nature in immigration court. As an IJ, you see persecutors and those who were persecuted; courageous individuals and liars. It is a huge responsibility. Therefore, you can’t go into court as an IJ and be thinking either that everyone is telling the truth, or that everyone is manipulating the process. You have to have an open, yet critical mind. It seems to me that Attorney General Sessions did not have a full appreciation for our particular role. This again brings us back to the idea of an Article I court, or some other solution to solidify the independence of immigration court adjudicators.
Asylumist: What do you think should be done about asylum-decision disparities? Does something need to be done?
Judge Keller: Yes. I think that asylum decision disparities should be evaluated by immigration court managers as they may be a sign of an underlying problem that may need to be addressed. However, I do not believe that they can or should be entirely eliminated.
If a judge is significantly out of line with his or her colleagues in the local court, it might be a red flag. Sometimes, simple things impact grant rates. For example, did the IJ miss some training in a particular area and is that affecting the grant rate? Is the judge assigned or does a court have a docket that by its nature (detained, criminal) will result in a higher or lower grant rate? Court managers should be alert to and manage those issues.
We’ve been looking at this issue for a long time. I remember talking about it with many EOIR leaders and judges over the last 10 years. But each case is different from the next and you don’t want decisions on asylum made according to mathematical formulas as if by computers. Decisions on such important human matters should be made by people who know the legal requirements, and can exercise sound judgment.
One way we thought about addressing seemingly significant disparities was temporarily assigning IJs with high or low grant rates to courts where the grant rates are different. Sometimes, the best way to evaluate your own opinions is to think through them with people who have different views. The hope was that judges would have the time and opportunity to reflect on their approach to asylum.
Once, former Director Osuna and I went to Chicago to visit the judges of the Seventh Circuit, which was at the time highly critical of our judges. We met with several of the Circuit Judges and talked about many things, including disparities in immigration court. We explained our approach to disparities, namely, addressing training needs, addressing any inappropriate conduct via discipline, and improving resources. One of the Circuit Judges mentioned that he was appreciative of our approach, and suspected that if anyone looked at it, there are probably similar disparities at the circuit court level too. As long as human beings are deciding immigration cases, there will always be some disparities. However, significant disparities should be evaluated and action taken only if the disparity is the result of something inappropriate, that is, something other than the proper exercise of independent legal judgment.
Asylumist: What is your hope for the future of EOIR?
Judge Keller: I hope EOIR can hold onto its core focus of hearing and deciding cases fairly and impartially. I also hope that the parties in the process know that we are listening to them. Parties in any court should feel that they’ve received a fair shake and a fair decision. They should understand the reasons why their cases were decided a certain way, and should not have to wait for years to get resolution. That is our reason for being – to deliver that service.
We are living in a time of big lies. President Trump is notorious for his mendacity, and many members of his Administration are no better. These lies come in different shapes and sizes, and relate to topics as diverse as climate change, election meddling, hurricane forecasts, international trade, and Joe Biden. But the biggest and most oft-repeated lies seem to involve immigrants: Asylum seekers are criminals, separating children from parents at the border was Obama’s fault, the asylum system is a scam, non-citizens are voting in our elections, illegal immigrants get free healthcare and welfare benefits, Democrats support open borders, the Diversity Visa Lottery lets foreign governments choose who gets a green card, Muslim refugees were admitted into the U.S. while Christian refugees were refused, immigrants can sponsor all sorts of distant relatives through “chain migration,” Central American countries are safe, etc., etc.
The question I want to ask today is this: If the government itself is lying about asylum seekers, why shouldn’t asylum seekers lie if it helps them win their cases?
The Asyl-Immanuel Kant approve a case where the applicant has Ben Constant-ly lying.
My interest here is not in practicality–it is clearly a bad idea to lie because you might get caught. Our government has a lot of information about asylum seekers and can use that information to test credibility. Asylum Officers, USCIS Officers, DHS attorneys, and Immigration Judges are good at examining witnesses and ferreting out falsehoods. Even if you get away with lying on an asylum application, the lie could come back to haunt you in the future (when you apply for residency or citizenship, or if you want to sponsor a family member). So there are good, practical reasons to tell the truth: You could lose your case, you could be blocked from any immigration benefits for life, you could end up in jail. And if you do get away with it, you can never really rest easy, and for as long as you are here, you will have to live with the possibility that your lie might be exposed and you could lose the life you’ve built in the United States. So in practice, lying is a bad idea. Here, though, I am interested in the morality of lying; not the practicality. Is it morally wrong to lie if that lie helps you to remain in the United States?
At one time, it would have been easy to answer that question in the affirmative. While President Obama’s policies were not always friendly to immigrants–he was called the “Deporter in Chief” by some immigration advocates–his Administration never engaged in the type of systematic dishonesty that we see from President Trump and his team. Despite all the problems during President Obama’s term (and there were many problems), at least it felt as though asylum applicants could generally have their cases adjudicated in an environment that was free from overt political interference. Given that people could get a fair shake, the moral justification for lying was a more difficult case to make.
In those distant days of the Obama Presidency, it was common to hear asylum seekers express great faith in our system of justice. That was one reason they came here in the first place. Their faith in our system made them more likely to tell the truth. Ironically, the constant barrage of lies from President Trump and his Administration is eroding faith in our system, which creates an increased incentive for individuals to falsify their own asylum stories. When the asylum system is discredited and illegitimate, the moral case for telling the truth is weakened.
Of course this outlook assumes a sort-of quid pro quo: If you (Trump) lie about me (asylum seeker), I can lie to you. This is an ends-justify-the-means approach that has never appealed to my sense of justice, and I am frankly uncomfortable with lying from a moral perspective simply because I believe lying is wrong–regardless of the end goal. But this is a type of morality that is easily deconstructed under various modern theories of legal justice. For example, when my law partner asks me, as he often does, “Do these pants make me look fat?” I always say no, even though those pants do make him look fat. I am lying for the sake of maintaining harmony in the office. Ends justifying means. So perhaps I should be less skittish about the moral implications of lying in other realms.
Indeed, support for the morality of lying for the “greater good” can be found in an old philosophical conundrum, presented by Benjamin Constant to Immanuel Kant in 1797. Kant basically believed that lying was always wrong, and so Constant challenged him with a scenario where a murderer is searching for his victim. The murderer arrives at the house of the victim’s friend and asks the friend where the victim is hiding. Does the friend have a duty to speak truthfully to the murderer? Constant argues that he does not–
The concept of duty is inseparable from the concept of right. A duty is that on the part of one being which corresponds to the rights of another. Where there are no rights, there are no duties. To tell the truth is therefore a duty, but only to one who has a right to the truth. But no one has a right to a truth that will harm others.
And so where the government is deliberately harming asylum seekers by lying about them in order to send them away, how can we say that asylum seekers have a duty to tell the truth to that same government?
For me, this is a difficult and uncomfortable question. But despite it all–the unfair laws (which long pre-date this Administration), the torrent of false claims about asylum seekers, the assault on due process–I still think lying is morally wrong in an asylum case. Here’s why: First, for me, the idea of asylum is somehow sacred. Our country is offering protection to strangers who need our help. We ask for nothing in return. In this respect, and despite a realpolitik element, asylum represents our highest ideals. And these are not just American ideals. The idea of welcoming the stranger is mentioned again and again in the Bible. Because I view asylum this way, the idea of lying to win one’s case feels like the violation of a sacred trust or covenant, and I see that as morally wrong.
Also, lying to win asylum further erodes the system and makes it harder for other asylum seekers to receive the protection they need. It is bad enough that the Trump Administration is systematically trying to dismantle our asylum system. When asylum seekers lie, they unwittingly aid in this effort and amplify it, and I believe that this is morally wrong.
Finally, I do not believe that two wrongs make a right. Just because the Administration is debasing itself by lying to harm asylum seekers, I do not think asylum seekers should do the same. I do not think it is moral to lower one’s own standards simply because another person is acting immorally, or even when we are operating in a system that is moving towards moral bankruptcy.
Having said all this, I recognize that I am far less affected by “the system” than the people seeking asylum. I have less to gain and less to lose. Each of us–asylum applicants, attorneys, decision-makers–has to make our own decision based on our own moral imperatives and our own needs. The President and his Administration have made their choice. They are lying to further their agenda. My hope is that asylum seekers and the asylum system can survive their lies while keeping our own morality intact.
There are now more than 1,000,000 people with cases pending before our nation’s Immigration Courts. The culmination of this process is the Individual Hearing, where the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) usually decides whether the applicant gets asylum, some other relief, or is ordered deported from our country. For asylum seekers, the Individual Hearing can be stressful and frightening. Here, we will discuss what to expect at that hearing. In prior posts, I discussed the Master Calendar Hearing, and how to prepare for the Individual Hearing.
Before we get to the substance of what happens at the Individual Hearing, I should mention that there are detained and non-detained hearings. A detained hearing is similar to a non-detained hearing in terms of the order of events, but sometimes the IJ and the alien are in different locations, and so cases are done by video (non-detained cases can also be done by video, but this is less common). These video hearings are more difficult to litigate, in terms of looking at documents, hearing each other talk, reading non-verbal cues, empathizing with the applicant, etc. Detained hearings are more difficult to prepare for, as it is difficult to gather evidence and get ready for your case when you are in jail.
Also, of course, different IJs have different styles (in Immigration Court, IJs decide the case – there are no juries). Some IJs ask a lot of questions; others ask no questions. Some are professional and respectful; others, not so much. It is helpful to know something about your IJ before the court hearing, so you can have an idea about what to expect. Statistics about asylum grant rates for many IJs can be found at TRAC Immigration.
Also, if the Judge makes a joke, don’t forget to laugh. Even if you have no idea what the heck he is talking about.
Finally, as I discussed previously, many cases are won or lost before the trial even begins, and so how well the case is prepared will likely affect how the Individual Hearing proceeds.
As for the Individual Hearing itself, it begins when the IJ arrives in court. Everyone stands up for the Judge. Once everyone sits, the hearing usually begins with a conversation between the IJ and the lawyers (assuming the alien has a lawyer). During this discussion, the parties may try to narrow the issues that need to be discussed. Perhaps there are some areas of agreement, and it is helpful to know this in advance. Also, in some cases, the IJ will not need to hear testimony about the entire case – maybe the alien will only need to testify about part of her story.
At the beginning of the hearing, the IJ will ask what “relief” you are seeking. This can be asylum, Withholding of Removal, relief under the Torture Convention, Cancellation of Removal, Adjustment of Status, Voluntary Departure, and/or something else. The IJ will also mark the evidence and hear any objections. So if you submitted evidence, and the DHS attorney objects to that evidence, the Judge must decide whether or not to admit that evidence into the record, and how much “weight” to give to that piece of evidence (some evidence is considered more reliable than other evidence and hence receives more “weight” in terms of how much it influences the IJ’s decision). At this time, the IJ will also ask whether there are any changes to the form I-589. You can update your form and make any corrections. Once the form is updated, the IJ will have you sign the form under penalty of perjury. You will also be “sworn in” under the penalty of perjury. This is basically a promise to tell the truth, and if it is found that you are not telling the truth, there are potential immigration and criminal consequences. If there is an interpreter in your case, the interpreter will also be sworn in.
If you have brought any witnesses to court, they will typically be asked to wait outside, so they cannot hear your testimony. That way, their testimony can be compared to your testimony. If there are inconsistencies between your witness and you, it could cause the IJ to think you are not telling the truth. For this reason, it is important that the witnesses are prepared in advance, and that you and your witnesses are on the same page. Keep in mind that different people may have different memories of the same event, and even if they are both telling the truth, there is still a risk that the two accounts will not be consistent. For this reason, it is important to go over each person’s testimony prior to the court hearing.
Normally, the “respondent” (the alien who is the subject of the court proceeding) testifies first. This usually begins with your attorney asking questions (assuming again that you have an attorney). This is called the “direct examination,” and usually involves you telling your whole story. Once the testimony is done, the DHS attorney asks questions. This is called “cross examination.” During cross exam, the DHS attorney will often try to test your credibility. There are different ways to do this: Asking about prior inconsistencies in other applications (including any visa applications), at the Asylum Office, or during the credible fear interview; asking about testimony that seems implausible or inconsistent with country conditions; asking about documents or evidence that seems fraudulent. Hopefully, as you prepare your case, you will think about some possible avenues for cross examination and how you might respond. Afterwards, your attorney has an opportunity to ask some additional questions, based on what happened during cross examination. This is called “re-direct.” The IJ can interject with questions at any time.
During your testimony (and for your witnesses’ testimony), remember that if you do not understand a question, ask for clarification. Do not answer a question that you do not understand. If you do not know the answer to a question, or you do not remember the answer, just say that you don’t know or you don’t remember; don’t guess. If you need a moment to collect your thoughts, ask for that. If you need a break, ask for that too. If you have an interpreter and there is a problem with the interpretation, don’t be afraid to raise that issue as well (especially if you do not have a lawyer or your lawyer does not understand the language). Also, on cross exam, the DHS attorney often asks yes-or-no questions, and will sometimes insist on a yes-or-no answer (sometimes, the IJ will do this as well). If you cannot answer the question using a yes or no, try to explain that. If you feel that you have no choice but to answer yes or no, you should at least alert the IJ that you have more to say. On re-direct, you will have an opportunity to elaborate on your answer. Remember to always be polite and don’t lose your cool.
After your testimony is finished, it will be your witnesses’ turn. Sometimes, the IJ will accept a “proffer” of a witness’s testimony (assuming both your lawyer and DHS agree). This means that the IJ will accept the testimony as recounted in the witness’s letter (witnesses generally submit a statement in advance of trial), and that the witness will not actually need to testify. A proffer can be beneficial to your case (since it eliminates the possibility of inconsistent testimony), but it can also be a disadvantage (since the IJ will not hear the witness’s testimony, which would presumably support your asylum claim).
After all the testimony is done, most–but not all–IJs allow the lawyers to make closing arguments. This is an opportunity for the lawyers to explain why they think you should win (or, for the DHS lawyer, lose) your case. Some IJs prefer to have a discussion at the end of testimony, to see whether there is agreement about resolution of the case.
Finally, the IJ will either make an oral decision, reserve decision for later, or inform the parties about the next step (in some cases, the IJ needs more information from the parties before she can make a decision). In the majority of of cases, the IJ issues an oral decision that same day.
If you do not like the IJ’s decision, you can “reserve” appeal. If the DHS attorney does not like the IJ’s decision, DHS can reserve appeal. If you (or DHS) reserve appeal, you have 30 days to file the appeal using form EOIR-26. The IJ should give you the deadline for the appeal. If you or DHS appeal, the appeal will be resolved by the Board of Immigration Appeals. But that is a story for another day.
