Journey to the U.S. Can Be Especially Dangerous for Women

by Jason Dzubow

Asylum is one of the few mechanisms for people who enter the U.S. illegally to obtain legal status in our country, and many asylum seekers risk the difficult journey from their home countries, through South America, Central America, and Mexico, and into the United States.  The trip is dangerous for everyone, but women face particular hardships. 

A recent report from the Immigration Policy Center by Kavitha Sreeharsha notes that “70% of women who cross without spouses or other [family members] are sexually assaulted during the border crossing.”  “Advocates report that women are encouraged to take birth control pills before traveling across the border in anticipation of the sexual assault.”  Probably as a result of this danger, the ratio of female to male asylum seekers who enter the country at the Southern border is very low (according to DHS, only about 17% of people apprehended at the U.S./Mexican border are female).

In my own practice, I regularly see asylum seekers who have traveled from Africa and crossed into the United States illegally.  Some have been apprehended at the border and later released; others have avoided capture.  It’s very rare for me to see female asylum seekers who entered the United States in this manner.  In fact, I can only think of one woman client who crossed the border without inspection.  She traveled from Africa to South America and then to Central America and Mexico.  She met different smugglers in each country.  Sometimes, she traveled with other Africans, but other times, she was alone.  She made the journey with no particular problems and then she crossed the Rio Grande River with a few dozen migrants.  Once she was in the United States, the smugglers separated her and another woman (and that woman’s small children), and locked them in a house.  The smugglers raped my client.  After some days, she escaped and contacted the police.  The smugglers were never captured.

My client’s story illustrates the danger faced by women traveling alone along the smuggling route.  Of course, we hope that the countries where these smugglers operate will crack down on the practice, but such reforms seem a long way off in most places.  The story also illustrates the risks people will take to escape their problems and seek a better life in our country.  To paraphrase the old idiom: immigration is the sincerest form of flattery.

Continue reading

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

by Jason Dzubow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading

Help for the Stateless?

by Jason Dzubow

According to a recent report, about 4,000 people known to be stateless are living in the United States.  Probably, many more are living here under the radar.  Refugees International reports that there are over 12 million stateless people world-wide: “Statelessness results from factors such as political change, border demarcation or secession, forced expulsion, discrimination, nationality based solely on descent, and laws regulating marriage and birth registration.”  Stateless people have “limited access to health care and education; prospects for employment are poor, leading to generations of poverty; and their right to freedom of movement is routinely violated. Stateless people face social exclusion, harassment, and violence.”

Current U.S. law does not provide stateless people with any legal status.  Unable to return to their former countries, stateless individuals living in the United States risk being detained and must apply annually for permission to work.  They also face travel restrictions and are often required to report regularly to immigration officials–a requirement that can last indefinitely. 

When the Dan Glickman of Refugees International testified before Congress last month, he gave the example of Tatianna, a stateless woman from the former Soviet Union:

Tatianna is a 61 year-old mother and grandmother, a piano teacher who has lived in the United States for over 20 years.  She was born in Russia during Soviet times and eventually moved to what is now Ukraine.  In 1992, after being persecuted by the authorities for her political beliefs, she came to the United States with the younger of two sons and applied for asylum.  Their case was denied in 1997.  Following its independence Ukraine passed a law requiring people to have resided in Ukraine for two years following independence to be eligible for citizenship. Tatianna had fled before having lived in Ukraine for two years and she is therefore not recognized as a Ukrainian citizen. Russia doesn’t recognize Tatianna as a citizen either because Russian nationality laws require individuals to have lived in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which Tatianna did not.

This means that the United States had nowhere to return Tatianna after denying her asylum claim. Tatiana and her son are stateless.  No country recognizes Tatianna as a citizen. She has no nationality, and there is no legal pathway for her to acquire citizenship in the U.S.  She lives in limbo and is unable to fully participate in society.  She has no travel documents and no means to acquire them.  She has been separated from some of her closest family members for decades.  And although she and her son have paid taxes in the United States since they arrived 20 years ago, she is not eligible for social security.  Tatianna must check in with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) every month by telephone and every six months in person.  She never knows what might happen when she goes to DHS and lives in fear that she could be arbitrarily jailed.

The proposed Refugee Protection Act addresses the problem of statelessness and provides a path for stateless residents of the U.S. to obtain their permanent residency and ultimately their citizenship.  Hopefully, support for the RPA will gain momentum and provide help to stateless people in the United States.

Continue reading

3 Comments

Congressional Hearing on EOIR

by Jason Dzubow
On June 17, the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law held an oversight hearing on the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).  The hearing was called by Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) as part of a long-running effort to understand why the Immigration Courts and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) are as backlogged, inefficient, and overwhelmed as they are. 
 

Where the magic happens.

While ranking member Steve King (R-IA) continued his crusade to find out what “really happened” in the asylum case of President Obama’s aunt, the rest of the Subcommittee and witnesses got straight to the crux of EOIR’s problems:  lack of resources, insufficient staffing and training of immigration judges, and a complete disconnect between EOIR’s capacity to adjudicate cases and ICE’s skyrocketing enforcement efforts.   

First up was Juan Osuna, former Chairman of the BIA and current Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice.  As the DOJ representative before the Subcommittee, he was obliged to highlight the positive changes made during the Obama Administration’s stewardship of EOIR.  These efforts include the proposed hiring of 47 new immigration judges by the end of 2010, making the complaint process against IJs more transparent, improving the training regime for IJs, and having “meetings” with ICE to express EOIR and DOJ’s discontent with the massive number of immigration court cases being initiated by ICE right now. 

Mr. Osuna is right to be concerned about the astonishing increase in cases before the immigration courts.  He testified that there are a record 275,000 pending matters before EOIR.  Coupled with the decline of IJs actually hearing cases, this has resulted in an average wait-time of 439 days for a case to go to trial.  That’s right—the average person who has a case in immigration court has to wait over a year for a hearing on the merits of his or her claim.  Meanwhile, armed with a gargantuan budget and an enforcement mandate, ICE keeps arresting, detaining, and issuing “notices to appear” to as many noncitizens as it possibly can.  EOIR has no control over this and clearly isn’t keeping up.   

As Representative Pedro Pierluisi (D-PR) pointed out, the overwhelming caseload and lack of support is creating a great deal of strain on immigration judges themselves.  Witness and Immigration Judge Dana Marks (also President of the National Association of Immigration Judges), noted that the average Federal district court judge handles 400 cases per year and has three law clerks to assist him.  The average immigration judge completes 1500 cases per year and gets ¼ of one law clerk.  Further, TRAC Immigration reports have indicated that an IJ gets an average of only 70 minutes to hear an immigration case.  Practically speaking, that means that in just over an hour, an IJ has to decide whether the law requires him to split up a family, keep someone detained, or send someone back to his home country to face persecution.  And the DOJ wonders why it has a hard time finding qualified, experienced immigration judges? 

The laundry list of problems raised at the hearing could go on for pages, so I’ll stop here.  I think it is clear enough that as a starting point, EOIR needs more resources if ICE is going to continue to funnel record numbers of people into deportation proceedings.  For other suggestions on how to reform the immigration court system, I recommend reading a recent ABA report called “Reforming the Immigration System: Proposals to Promote Independence, Fairness, Efficiency, and Professionalism in the Adjudication of Removal Cases.” You can read the full ABA report here.

Continue reading

UN World Refugee Day

by Jason Dzubow

As millions of people around the globe were marking World Refugee Day on Sunday, UNHCR chief António Guterres called on the international community to do more for the forcibly displaced.

High Commissioner made his call during a press conference in Syria – broadcast on a live video link – where he met earlier in the day with President Bashar Assad and other top leaders. Syria hosts about 1 million mainly Iraqi refugees, according to the government.

“I appeal to the international community to do more to host refugees,” Guterres said just two days after the UN refugee agency announced that 100,000 Iraqi refugees have been referred for resettlement from the Middle East to third countries since 2007, a major milestone for one of the world’s largest refugee populations.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, meanwhile, also made an appeal on behalf of refugees in a special World Refugee Day message. “Refugees have been deprived of their homes, but they must not be deprived of their futures,” he said, while calling for working with host governments to deliver services and for intensified efforts to resolve conflicts so that refugees can return home.

To read more, click here.

Continue reading

The ICE Plan Cometh

by Jason Dzubow

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has announced a new five-year Strategic Plan.  The Plan’s top three priorities are: (1) preventing terrorism and enhancing security; (2) securing and managing our borders; and (3) enforcing and administering our immigration laws.  There is not a whole lot in the Plan that relates to asylum, perhaps because ICE does not view asylum seekers as a major concern.  However, a few sections of the Plan may impact asylum seekers:

One objective of the plan is to dismantle organized alien smuggling.  In my practice, I’ve seen a number of asylum seekers who have followed a smuggling route from Africa to the U.S. (via South and Central America).  My guess is, this operation is too small to garner much attention from ICE, though there certainly are examples of individual smugglers brought to justice.  We’ll see if ICE’s plan impacts these small-scale operations, and whether it does anything to stem the modest flow of asylum seekers entering at our Southern border. 

The report also states that “newly arriving aliens who do not successfully evade detection are apprehended, detained, and removed as appropriate by law.”  As long as these arriving aliens continue to have opportunities to request asylum and credible fear interviews at the border, this provision should not greatly impact asylum seekers.  The danger is that the practice of cajoling, threatening, and tricking arriving aliens into waiving their right to seek protection will become more common in a culture of stepped up enforcement.  Such behavior is not supposed to happen now, but I have heard many reports that it does.  Hopefully, ICE’s get-tough approach will not compromise our human rights obligations.

The plan continues:

To best protect the system, ICE will work closely with USCIS and the Department of State to identify, address, and prevent the many large-scale, organized frauds perpetrated on the government each year. In addition, ICE will pursue criminal cases against individuals who lie on applications, engage in fraud, and pose a threat to national security or public safety. As ICE attorneys have great insight into possible fraud, they will actively refer cases to ICE agents and, as possible, serve as Special Assistant United States Attorneys to assist with prosecutions. ICE will expand the number of document and benefit fraud task forces to every Special Agent in Charge office.  Following criminal cases, ICE will work closely with USCIS to address lingering administrative fraud.  Also to protect the integrity of the immigration system, ICE will remove aliens who receive final orders, with a focus on convicted criminals and those who have most recently received orders.

I’ve written before about methods to combat asylum fraud.  While ICE can target cases of individual fraud, I’ve always felt that the best policy is to pursue attorneys, notarios, and others who create fraudulent cases.  These people are the most culpable, and removing them from the scene will have a greater impact than removing an individual alien.  Plus, from my conversations with ICE attorneys, it should not be too hard to identify the fraudsters.  The danger, of course, is that legitimate asylum seekers will be intimidated by over-zealous attorneys looking for fraud.  In an atmosphere of increased enforcement, it will be more important than ever for ICE personnel to be sensitive to the situation of legitimate asylum seekers.

Continue reading

Congressman Steve King’s Aunt Onyango Stunt

by Jason Dzubow

Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) is the latest politician to exploit President Obama’s Aunt Onyango for political gain.  Zeituni Onyango is the Kenyan half sister of President Obama’s father.  She filed for asylum in 2002 and lost, but after Obama came onto the national scene, she re-applied and her application was granted.  Applications for asylum are confidential, but that doesn’t seem to bother Rep. King.  In a letter to the Chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law, he writes:

I am concerned about the public perception that favoritism played a role in the grant of asylum to Ms. Onyango.  The Boston Globe reported that “the [asylum] decision unleashed a firestorm of criticism from those who felt Onyango received preferential treatment because of her relationship with the president.”   In order to better determine whether favoritism played a role – especially because Ms. Onyango had been earlier turned down for asylum and ordered deported in 2004 before her nephew became president – the Subcommittee needs to hear from Ms. Onyango herself.  Therefore, I will invite her as the Republican witness on the second panel at Thursday’s hearing.  

While I understand that asylum proceedings are generally confidential, Margaret Wong, Ms. Onyango’s attorney, has clearly courted press attention regarding this matter.  In fact, I assume that the press learned that Ms. Onyango received asylum because of comments to the media made by Ms. Wong.  Therefore, Ms. Onyango has made herself a public figure and should have no hesitation about appearing before the Subcommittee.  Further, in order to facilitate Ms. Onyango’s appearance before the Subcommittee, I request that you and Chairman Conyers authorize the Committee to reimburse her travel expenses.

I’ve already written about Ms. Onyango’s case and the likely basis for granting her asylum.  Suffice it to say, for anyone familiar with the law of asylum, it’s no great stretch to imagine why Mr. Onyango’s case was approved.  Further, Rep. King’s attempt to blame Ms. Onyango’s attorney (who is apparently a bit of a self-promoter) for turning Ms. Onyango into a public figure is ridiculous–Ms. Onyango cannot be blamed for her attorney’s actions.  Finally, if there were any type of misconduct or improper influence in this case, why ask Ms. Onyango about it?  Why not subpoena the Immigration Judge or the DHS attorney?  The reason is simple.  Rep. King does not care about the truth.  He just wants to exploit Obama’s Aunt for his own political gain.

Continue reading

Can DNA Stop Asylum Fraud?

by Jason Dzubow

The United Kingdom is experimenting with genetic testing as a method for reducing asylum fraud.  According to the UK Border Agency, falsifying nationality to gain political asylum has been a particular problem among East Africans (I recently discussed this problem here).  In response, the UKBA attempted to implement a program to genetically test East African asylum seekers to determine their country of origin.  The 2009 program was much criticized by scientists and immigrant advocates, and the British government ultimately shelved the plan.  However, the UK is continuing a smaller scale “proof of concept” project that is scheduled to finish up this month.  According to the UKBA: 

Participation in the project will be entirely voluntary, and will test whether there is the potential for these investigations to be supported by wider use of DNA testing and isotope analysis. Whilst this trial is being undertaken, no decisions on individual cases will be made using these techniques, and they will not be used for evidential purposes.

At the end of the project, the UKBA will evaluate the efficacy and ethics of the project and determine whether the technique could be used to augment its decision-making process in asylum cases. 

A UKBA scientist tests for Somali nationality.

The main objection to the project seems to be that it conflates nationality with ancestry.  A Somali citizen, for example, may be of Ethiopian ancestry.  The science website Singularity Hub reports:

[G]enes don’t relate to political borders. And there are strong doubts as to whether testing this particular group can even provide the slightest statistical reliability, mainly because of past and present population movements throughout the region.

Current TV reports on a second part of the test:

[An] applicant will be asked to give hair and fingernail samples; by looking at which forms of certain elements the samples contain, the government scientists hope to find evidence of the person’s diet and environment [to determine the country of origin]. But isotope specialist Tamsin O’Connell says the results won’t be specific enough to be meaningful. “It is very difficult to identify individuals to very specific locations using isotopes alone,” she said.

In other words, whether or not genetics and isotope analysis can be used to determine nationality is a dubious presumption.  Further, using genetic testing in this way raises ethical issues.  Current TV reports that geneticists and isotope specialists have referred to the project as “horrifying,” “naïve,” and “flawed.”

Writing for the Singularity Hub, Christopher de la Torre imagines a time when genetic testing might be able to identify a person’s country of origin: 

Using DNA to track populations and ancestry isn’t new, but regulating according to DNA opens a Pandora’s box of potential. As the rate of technological progress grows exponentially, it’s more important than ever to balance our ability with morality. 

Continue reading

Pennsylvania Man Sentenced for Asylum Fraud

by Jason Dzubow

From a June 10, 2010 Department of Justice press release:

David Lynn, 35, of Holland, PA, was sentenced today to 40 months in prison for leading an asylum fraud scheme that netted him and five co-defendants millions of dollars in illegal profits, announced United States Attorney Zane David Memeger. Lynn pleaded guilty, in October 2008, to one count of conspiracy, one count of visa/asylum fraud, one count of money laundering, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Lynn, who was charged with five co-defendants, ran a business that filed at least 380 bogus asylum applications for clients, between January 2003 and March 2007, charging an average of $8,000 for an application.

Investigators say Lynn posed as a lawyer.  According to an ABC News report, “only a handful of Lynn’s 380 clients from around the country made it through the system by claiming they would face oppression if they returned home.”  The majority of the aliens are in removal proceedings.  Some have already left the country knowing they were going to be deported.  According to another report, the perpetrators were Russian immigrants and most clients were from Russia, Ukraine, and Poland.

Unfortunately, it is a common pattern for unscrupulous immigrants to exploit their countrymen, who are naive about the American system and are ready to trust their own kind.  What’s most amazing to me is that a guy who lost the large majority of his cases and charged $8,000 per person–far more than most legitimate lawyers–seemed to maintain a booming business.  It’s a sad testament to the gullibility and desperation of the clients, some of whom may have lost out on bona fide claims.  Other clients were likely complicit in the fraud, and it’s harder to muster sympathy for them. 

I believe the best way to stop fraud is to go after people like Mr. Lynn, who blatantly take advantage of a system that is designed to help the most vulnerable.  By stopping Mr. Lynn, the DOJ has helped to preserve the integrity of the asylum process.  Congratulations to those involved in the investigation, and keep up the good work.

Continue reading

“Son of Hamas” Seeking Asylum in United States

by Jason Dzubow
Hamasochist?

The son of a founder of Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, is scheduled to appear in Immigration Court in San Diego on June 30, 2010.  Mossad Hassan Yousef, son of Hamas founding member Sheikh Hassan Yousef, says that he “accepted Christ” in 2005.  He also claims to have worked as a spy for the Israeli intelligence agency Shin Bet, and says he helped foil numerous terrorists attacks.  Apparently, his father disowned him, and he fears return to the Palestinian territory.  The younger Yousef has written a book about his experience, Son of Hamas, subtitled: A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices.

Mr. Yousef has been blogging about his life and his asylum case.  He writes that despite his questionable pedigree, he entered the U.S. without difficulty in January 2007.  Seven months later, he applied for political asylum.  His application was rejected because the Asylum Office deemed him a danger to the security of the United States and a terrorist.  The case was referred to an Immigration Judge.  Mr. Yousef seems surprised by his situation:

My concern is not about being deported. It is that I am being forced to stand and defend myself as a terrorist! This is ridiculous. And as long as this case is in the courts, I cannot leave the United States. If I do, I will never be able to return. For what? For risking my life fighting terrorism in the Middle East for ten years? For saving the lives of Israelis, Palestinians and Americans?

Maybe so, but I can understand why the Asylum Office was hesitant to grant asylum.

Mr. Yousef claims that DHS is relying on the work he did for Shin Bet–which involved “helping” members of Hamas in order to infiltrate the organization–to charge him with providing material support to terrorists.  He writes, “If Homeland Security cannot tell the difference between a terrorist and a man who spent his life fighting terrorism, how can they protect their own people?”  He continues:

Exposing terrorist secrets and warning the world in my first book cost me everything. I am a traitor to my people, disowned by my family, a man without a country. And now the country I came to for sanctuary is turning its back.

We’ll see.  I imagine Mr. Yousef knows that the judge will review his asylum claim de novo, so the Asylum Office’s conclusion should not be much of a factor.  He seems to have a strong asylum case, and his story about working for Shin Bet appears credible.  Maybe DHS believes that he is a double agent, or maybe they have evidence that we (and Mr. Yousef) does not know about.  Or maybe, as Mr. Yousef suggests, DHS is simply incapable of distinguishing between a terrorist and an anti-terrorist.  I don’t know, but I wonder, if DHS is really so concerned about Mr. Yousef, why he is not currently detained pursuant to INA § 236A (Mandatory detention of suspected terrorists)?

Continue reading

1 Comment

Man Connected to Terror Plot Was Failed Asylee

by Jason Dzubow

Pir Khan, a 43-year-old taxi driver from Watertown, Massachusetts was arrested May 13, along with his cousin, Aftab Khan, 27, on immigration charges as part of the investigation into the May 1 car bombing attempt in Times Square.  Pir Khan allegedly gave money to the failed Times Square bomber, though Mr. Khan and his cousin deny any connection with the would-be bomber.

Pir Khan came to the U.S. from Pakistan and applied for asylum in 1994.  Apparently, his case was not denied until 2007 (13 years later!), by which time he had married a U.S. citizen.  Apparently, he is now pursuing alternative relief based on the marriage (depending on the posture of the case, this may or may not be possible). 

Mr. Khan’s case raises some important points.  First, why did the asylum case take so long?  In the 1990s there were large numbers of asylum and NACARA claims from Central America (NACARA was an act that allowed certain Central Americans and others to remain in the U.S.; such cases are processed by the Asylum Office).  That, combined with a less efficient adjudication system led to long delays, and many cases lingered for a decade or more.  Today, asylum cases are resolved more quickly, though between the Asylum Office, the Immigration Court, and the appeals process, a case could easily take three or four years.     

There has got to be a better way to identify terrorists.

This raises a second, more important point.  Could a potential terrorist use the asylum system to gain entry into the U.S. to commit a crime?  The answer is a qualified yes.  Qualified, because asylum is probably one of the worst ways for a criminal to gain access to our country.  Asylum applicants are repeatedly fingerprinted, photographed, and interviewed.  They probably have more contact with “the system” than any other category of alien save those that have committed a crime.  None of the September 11th terrorists were asylum seekers–they all entered the country through other means.  This does not mean that a terrorist could not make a false claim for asylum, or that he could not delay his removal by appealing a denied asylum claim.  However, by subjecting himself to the biometric background check, any potential terrorist could have his cover blown and his plot foiled.  This does not mean that the system is perfect, but it may be less vulnerable to such breaches than other applications.  (In an aside, a UK report from some years ago found that one in four terrorist suspects was an asylum seeker.   The term “asylum seeker” has a broader meaning in the UK than here, but nevertheless, the report reminds us to be vigilant for this type of threat.)

A related problem is the high rate of denied asylum seekers (and other aliens denied relief) who fail to depart the United States.  That was Mr. Khan–he was denied asylum, but he remained in the U.S. anyway.  One solution is to simply detain all asylum seekers (and all illegal immigrants) until their cases are decided.  Not only would this be inhumane, it would be prohibitively expensive.  Moreover, it is unclear whether the increased security gained from such an approach would be cost effective.  Couldn’t the money be better spent on more targeted methods of protecting us?  Another solution might be to detain aliens at the end of their cases if relief is denied.  This would have many of the same problems as detaining all illegal immigrants, but at a slightly lower cost.  To me, the better approach involves alternatives to detention–bond, ankle bracelets, monitoring and reporting.  Such an approach is more humane (though it can still be coercive and scary for the alien) and less expensive.  In addition, Asylum Officers and DHS attorneys should be trained to ask questions that could help reveal whether a person has any terrorist connection (aside from the very lame and very useless–but also very common–“Have you ever supported any terrorist organization?”).  Such (admittedly controversial) techniques are employed by some airlines like El Al. 

As usual, we walk a fine line between living up to our ideals and fulfilling our humanitarian obligations on the one hand, and defending against terrorism on the other.  Those who care about the asylum system should be concerned with this dilemma: If one terrorist gains entry via the asylum process, all future asylum seekers will pay the price.

Continue reading

Refugees Have a Harder Time Attaining Self Sufficiency

by Jason Dzubow

Officials from the State Department, USCIS, the Department of Health and Human Services, and others have begun the process of recommending the refugee numbers–i.e., the number of refugees our country will accept–for Fiscal Year 2011.  The annual ceiling has been 80,000 refugees per year for the last three years, though we have never actually reached the ceiling: In FY 2008, we admitted 60,191 refugees and in FY 2009, we admitted 74,654 refugees.  Officials expect to admit about 73,000 refugees in FY 2010.

Because of the troubled economy, those refugees who are resettled in the United States are having a more difficult time achieving self sufficiency.  Government Executive reports:

Every refugee arriving in the country is provided with a sponsor affiliated with one of 10 national volunteer agencies that work to help refugees adjust to life in the United States. They provide a litany of services, including help finding work, enrolling children in schools and adults in English language classes, and finding medical care.  Refugees are eligible for public assistance and medical care for at least eight months, and sometimes longer, depending on family status and the state they live in.  They also receive about $1,100 in direct financial assistance after they arrive in the country.

Under a new government employment program, all refugees entering the U.S. will receive a free t-shirt.

The agencies are finding it more difficult to place refugees in jobs.  The State Department even claims to be informing refugees overseas about the difficult economy in the U.S., so they can make an informed decision about whether to resettle here or in another country.

Before I went to law school, I worked as a job developer at an agency that helped resettle refugees in Philadelphia.  I would travel around the city visiting employers, looking for job openings for my clients.  The jobs were often less than exciting.  I remember one man who worked as a parking lot attendant.  He had been the Minister of Finance for the Ethiopian army.  Another man had designed complex radar systems in the Soviet Union.  In America, he worked in a machine shop.  Such people have fled their countries to save their lives and their families’ lives.  The transition to a new culture often sets them back in ways that can never be overcome.  The plight of such refugees is not easy.  I am proud that my country accepts them and tries to help them live better lives.

Continue reading

Remembering the Golden Venture

by Jason Dzubow

It’s been 17 years since the Golden Venture ran aground off New York.  The Epoch Times remembers that fateful day in an interview with a Chinese fisherman who survived the ordeal, gained political asylum, and built a life for himself and his family in the United States:

“Jump! Jump! Hurry Up! Jump into the sea! You are in America. Or they will send you back to China,” a man shouted hastily. Hundreds of Chinese men and women jumped from a rusty freighter into the cold water, swimming, struggling, crying, and gasping.

Liu Ping

Ten people died as they struggled to swim to shore. After getting so close to the American dream, chased so painstakingly, they hit America’s shoreline at the end of their lives.

“The water was freezing and my body was weak. I didn’t know whether I could make it. I thought I was dying. I asked ‘God help me’,” recalled Liu Ping, 44, one of the survivors of 298 passengers on the Golden Venture that ran aground off New York at 2:00 a.m. on June 6, 1993.

Liu was one of the lucky survivors, and he was among the dozens who were granted asylum. Of the 298 people, 110 were deported to China, 53 were detained until 1997 when they were pardoned under a bill signed by President Clinton.

Now a permanent resident, Liu leads a peaceful and content life in Philadelphia with his wife and three children. Two of his children are U.S. born citizens. His other child was born in China and later became a naturalized American citizen. His wife, whom he married before coming to the U.S., also became a naturalized U.S. citizen.

A Survivor’s Story

He’ll never forgets how he made it – the Golden Venture experience.

Speaking with a thick Fujianese accent, Liu was emotional when recalling his 26-month journey from China to America. It was over land, mountains, across rivers, through a jungle, and finally over the ocean, using all possible method of travel imaginable.

The first words that he uttered on U.S. soil were “Thank you” to an American police officer.

(more…)

Continue reading

3 Comments

Briefing in Advance of World Refugee Day

by Jason Dzubow

The Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration of the Department of State and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) of the Department of Homeland Security co-hosted a background press briefing on June 3, 2010 on U.S. refugee and asylum-seeker resettlement programs. The discussion was held in advance of World Refugee Day, June 20, 2010.

The speakers gave basic background information on refugee and asylum issues and answered journalists’ questions (for purposes of this briefing, your humble blogger was considered a journalist).  The speakers explained that refugees were people outside the United States who had suffered past persecution or who had a well-founded fear of future persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or particular social group.  Asylum seekers are people who are in the United States (or at the border) who claim that they are refugees.  A few points that I thought were interesting:

Most refugees come to the U.S. from Iraq, Bhutan (via Nepal), and Burma (via Thailand and Malaysia).  The top three countries that accept refugees are the United States, Canada, and Australia.  The number of refugees resettled in the U.S. has increased 25% from last fiscal year.

For cases heard at the eight Asylum Offices in the U.S., a supervisor reviews every case.  Certain sensitive cases are reviewed by headquarters.  Asylum Officers receive an initial six weeks of training and then four hours of training each week.  Officers are trained to identify fraudulent documents. 

USCIS is working on a system to share biometric data with other countries; Canada in particular.  Presumably, the purpose of this is to determine whether the asylum applicant previously filed for asylum in another country and was rejected.

Violence along the Mexican border has caused some Mexicans to seek asylum at the border (though over the past few years, the number of Mexican asylum seekers has been dropping).  In the first six months of FY 2010, 233 Mexican nationals expressed a fear of persecution at the border.  Of those, 84 were deemed to have a “credible fear” and were referred to an Immigration Judge for an asylum hearing.  We can assume that the other 149 people were found not to have a credible fear of persecution and were removed under the expedited removal rules.

If you are wondering, I asked about a problem I have heard about from a number of clients and clients’ family members.  When an alien expresses a fear of return to her country, the ICE or CBP officer is supposed to refer the person for a credible fear interview with a USCIS Asylum Officer.  Apparently in some cases where a detained alien, or an alien at the border, expresses a fear of persecution, the ICE officer tries to convince the alien to sign papers agreeing to removal, and to not make a claim for asylum.  I have heard about this from different sources, though many of the people involved are expressing a fear of persecution by criminal gangs in Central America.  The USCIS spokesperson was not aware of the problem and indicated that ICE and CBP officers are supposed to refer such cases for credible fear interviews.

Continue reading

Fraud and Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

A recent report from Ireland found that almost two thirds of asylum seekers who claimed to be from Somalia were lying.  The investigation found that the “Somalis” were from other countries, such as Tanzania, Kenya, and Yemen.  Apparently, some of the asylum seekers were found out based on language or a lack thereof; others had previously applied for visas to the UK using different nationalities.  There may be some reason to doubt whether these techniques for outing “Somalis” are valid.  For example, some Somali nationals may have been refugees for many years, raised in other countries without knowledge of Somali languages.  Others may have used false passports from other countries to travel to Europe.  Nevertheless, the high percentage of cases that are likely fraudulent presents a problem for the “system” and for those who represent asylum seekers. 

Of course, the problem is not confined to Europe.  In 2007, the U.S. Embassy in Ethiopia issued a cable (I have not been able to find it online) entitled: Report on fraud trends in Ethiopian asylee claims: A guide for DHS adjudicators.  The cable talks about “following to join” cases where an alien has been granted asylum in the United States and has filed a form I-730 for his relatives to join him in the U.S.  From August 2005 to May 2006, the Embassy reviewed 1,449 following-to-join cases, which represented 288 asylum grants in the United States.  The Embassy writes that “Almost every [following-to-join] interview at Post uncovers information that calls into question the petitioner’s original claim.”  In addition, the Embassy has found that “more than 75 percent of documents investigated were fraudulent” and consular officers “suspect that the fraud rate is well over 50 percent.”  Again, there may be problems with the Embassy’s methods of investigating fraud, but the cable certainly presents evidence of a problem. 

The U.S. Embassy in Cameroon has issued a cable similar to the Ethiopian cable.  It states that asylum claims have increased dramatically since 1992.  The Embassy knows of no corresponding increase in political problems, though the economy has gotten worse, leading to the conclusion that many asylum seekers are economic migrants (the State Department Report on Human Rights conflicts somewhat with this view, listing human rights abuses such as torture, arbitrary arrest, and life-threatening prison conditions).  The Embassy also reports that Cameroonians have been detained entering the United States with all sorts of fake documents that could be used to create fraudulent asylum claims.  Relatives following to join frequently know nothing about the asylees’ political activities or persecution.  As a result of this fraud, non-immigrant visa refusal rates have increased from 35% in 2001 to 60% in 2004.  Further, the Embassy complains that fraudulent applications and following-to-join applications have dramatically increased its workload.  It recommends that Cameroonian asylum cases be viewed skeptically. 

Other evidence is more anecdotal.  A recent report from the blogosphere–I cannot vouch for the report’s credibility–indicates that an Ethiopian diplomat at the Embassy in Washington, DC quit his job, claimed asylum, and then returned to work at the Embassy as a public relations officer.  He was even listed on the Embassy website.  The report states that the diplomat’s asylum claim was false, and urged the U.S. government and the Ethiopian government to investigate.  

The problem of fraud presents a dilemma for attorneys who specialize in asylum and a challenge to the “system.” 

Attorneys who specialize in asylum have generally entered the field to assist those who genuinely fear persecution (we certainly don’t specialize in asylum for the money!), not to help facilitate fraud.  However, for the most part, we can’t know which cases are genuine and which are not, and it’s sometimes dangerous to judge.  I remember one Ethiopian woman whose case I doubted.  We won, and a few months later she returned to my office and asked whether I could help her find a doctor.  Ever since her detention and beating, she said, she had been suffering pain on one side of her body.  Although I don’t know whether this was true or not, she had no reason to lie.  Experiences like this make me cautious about judging my client’s veracity.  Instead, it’s better to represent my clients to the best of my ability and to let the Immigration Judge decide the case.

The problem of fraud also presents a challenge to the legal system.  Our country has–I think quite properly–taken a generous approach to asylum.  We would rather allow some fraudulent cases to succeed than turn away genuine asylum seekers.  Of course, if fraud becomes too pervasive, it might cause us to re-consider how we evaluate asylum claims.  The Australia government recently initiated a six-month freeze on processing asylum applications filed by Afghani and Sri Lankan asylum seekers who arrive by sea.  The system was becoming overwhelmed by applicants, and the government reacted with a heavy hand.  Such a broad brush approach is questionable under international law, and would obviously affect legitimate and illegitimate asylum seekers. 

So what can be done to reduce fraudulent asylum claims?

The U.S. Embassy in Cameroon suggests that DHS check asylum applications with records obtained at the Embassy to determine whether family members listed on the asylum form were also mentioned at the Embassy.  This would avoid the problem of asylum seekers “adding” family members in order to bring them to the U.S. after they win asylum.  If “false family members” could not follow to join, the incentive for seeking asylum might be reduced. 

Also, more generally, documented information at the Embassy could be compared with information in the asylum application.  Theoretically, this should happen already, but DHS has limited resources, and this method seems to have limited value, as most biographical information is consistent between the Embassy and the asylum application.

In many cases, friends and relatives in the home country submit letters in support of an applicant’s claim.  Such people could be called to the Embassy for questioning.  It is more difficult to create a fraudulent case if people in the home country are required to testify about the claimed persecution.  Of course, this would have to be done while maintaining confidentiality, but this should be possible given that such people already know about the asylum claim (having written letters in support of the claim).

Another option is to identify attorneys and notarios who prepare claims deemed suspicious.  Such people should be investigated and, if evidence of fraud is uncovered, prosecuted.  This, to me, is the easiest and most effective solution.  The DHS attorneys generally know who is producing and/or facilitating fraudulent claims.  Why not send an undercover investigator posing as a client to the suspected attorney?  If the attorney suggests that the “client” engage in fraud, the attorney could be charged with a crime (that is exactly what happened to a Washington State couple who helped create fraudulent asylum cases).  Such tactics would reduce fraud by eliminating the purveyors of fraud and by deterring others who might engage in such practices.

The trick is to reduce fraud without preventing legitimate asylum seekers from gaining protection.

Continue reading

7 Comments