There’s never a lack of bad news to report in asylum world, but it’s almost the New Year, and so I’d rather focus on the positive. A year ago, I wasn’t sure whether President Trump would even leave office, but–fortunately for our democracy–he did. At the time, immigrant advocates were hopeful that President Biden would reverse many of the bad policies enacted by his predecessor. While change has been slower and less consistent than expected, there are certainly positive developments to report.
Most obvious is the general attitude towards asylum seekers. During the Trump Administration, officials from the top down viewed asylum seekers as fraudsters and criminals who were intent on cheating the system. While many of the lower-level appointees from the Trump Administration remain, the overall attitude towards asylum seekers is certainly more balanced and respectful. The tone from the President and his leadership team is also more positive. And that makes a difference “in the trenches,” where decisionmakers are more willing to grant relief when they don’t feel that such a decision goes against their bosses’ preference. (more…)
It’s been more than 100 days since President Biden took office, and I have to say, I don’t think my clients or my fellow lawyers are feeling a whole lot better about the U.S. immigration system. This gut feeling is now backed up by data, thanks to a new report from the American Immigration Council (“AIC”), which shows the slow pace of improvement at USCIS.
As you may recall, the Trump Administration spent four years trying to dismantle the U.S. immigration system. And while certain immigrants (from Norway, for example) were theoretically welcome, most were not. The Administration never managed to amend the immigration law, but it did implement a number of rule-making, personnel, and policy changes designed to block non-citizens from obtaining legal status in our country.
For asylum seekers, these changes included making it more difficult and much slower to obtain a work permit, rejecting asylum applications for nonsensical reasons, focusing resources on fraud rather than adjudication, lengthening the Green Card process for asylees, and dramatically slowing the follow-to-join process for overseas family members of people granted asylum. The Administration made other changes that increased the backlogs in Immigration Court (where we recently passed 1.3 million pending cases) and the Asylum Office (386,000+ pending cases). Also, overall processing times at USCIS increased by 61% between FY2016 and FY2020. On top of the bureaucratic barriers, Mr. Trump’s Attorneys General issued decisions narrowly interpreting the asylum law, thus making it more difficult for applicants to obtain protection. (more…)
When you were in middle school, did you ever have a crush on a classmate? Did you analyze every stray glance and dissect every off-hand comment for signs that your crush liked you too? I feel like that’s what we’ve come to as observers of the asylum system. The mere mention of the words “asylum” and “backlog” by a government bureaucrat in the same sentence has become cause for celebration. My crush knows I exist! Woo Hoo!
Such a momentous event came to pass last week, when the Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) included the following paragraph in a letter to the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, summarizing President Biden’s “Discretionary Funding Request” for FY2022–
Supports a Humane and Efficient Immigration System. The discretionary request supports the promise of a fair and equitable immigration system that welcomes immigrants and reflects the Nation’s values. The discretionary request provides $345 million for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to address naturalization and asylum backlogs, support up to 125,000 refugee admissions in 2022, and allow for systems and operations modernization. The discretionary request supports expanded access to the Alternatives to Detention program and provides enhanced case management services, particularly for families seeking asylum. (more…)
Just before Christmas 2020 and without any advance warning, the Trump Administration changed the deadline for submitting documents to Immigration Court. Previously, documents were due 15 days before the Individual Hearing. The new rule requires that documents now be submitted 30 days before the Individual Hearing. For busy lawyers, who have many cases and many different deadlines, this was equivalent to throwing a wrench into the gears of the immigration machine. Changing a deadline like this has a ripple effect, and–more than two months later–we are still adjusting to the new rule.
Of course, this was not the first (or worst) effort by the prior Administration to sabotage the immigration system, but it does illustrate how a small procedural change can have an outsized impact: When a lawyer is struggling to adjust to a new rule, it affects the lawyer’s ability to do his best work, and this in turn has potential negative consequences for a client’s case.(more…)
The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 is finally here. It was unveiled last week by Senator Bob Menendez and Representative Linda Sanchez. The bill is very ambitious in scope, and aims to legalize about 11 million people, including “undocumented” immigrants, Dreamers, and people with Temporary Protected Status.
The odds-makers in the media seem to give the bill little chance of passing through the Senate, which requires at least ten Republicans to join with all the Democrats and Independents in order to overcome a filibuster. Some Senators (notably Lindsey Graham) have signaled a potential willingness to support a smaller bill–maybe one that would legalize Dreamers (also known as beneficiaries of DACA). This dilemma–which proponents of immigration reform have faced for decades–is nothing new: Go big and have more trouble passing a bill, or go small and help fewer people. We will have to see how things go, and certainly immigrant advocates need to be lobbying for a more comprehensive bill.
The bill itself is over 350 pages long and covers many different aspects of immigration. In this post, I will focus on a few points that directly affect asylum seekers. You can find basic summaries of the entire bill at Vox and Wikipedia, and a more comprehensive summary from blogger extraordinaire Greg Siskind. Here, though, we’ll stick to discussing only those provisions that relate most directly to asylum seekers. (more…)
Last week, President Biden issued several Executive Orders (EOs) related to immigration. Here, we’ll review the new EOs and discuss how they might affect asylum seekers. (more…)
As you’ve probably heard, President Biden has proposed a comprehensive immigration reform bill, called the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021. What does this proposal mean for asylum seekers? Who is included? When–if ever–will it go into effect? We’ll discuss those questions here. Spoiler alert: The answer to each question is “I don’t know.”
The first thing to know is that the bill is not yet public. All we have is a summary. Assuming the Biden Administration is being truthful (and I’m willing to grant them the benefit of the doubt, at least for Mr. Biden’s first week in office), a bill was sent to Congress on day one of the new Administration. Only a select few Congress people have the text of the bill, including New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez, who plans to introduce the bill in the Senate. Eventually.(more…)
There’s a concept in Judaism known as “teshuvah,” which means “returning.” The term implies a return to righteousness, and repenting for past sins. In Judaism, when we think of teshuvah during Rosh HaShana (the New Year) and Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), we think in terms of collective sin: We ask G-d to forgive us for the sins “we” committed, even if we did not personally commit those sins. We also pledge to right wrongs, even where we did not personally engage in wrongdoing. This is what I am thinking about as we inaugurate the Biden-Harris Administration after four years of President Trump.
The Democratic Party has released its 2020 Party Platform, which represents the Democrats’ aspirations for the next four years. Separately, the Biden/Harris campaign has released its immigration plan. Both plans contain concrete policy suggestions (as well as plenty of hyperbole), and here I want to discuss the points that relate directly to asylum.
Before we get to that, let’s briefly look at the most important points related to immigration generally, since these proposals would also affect asylum seekers. In terms of immigration, the Democratic Party Platform seeks to accomplish the following–
Stop work on the border wall
End the Muslim ban
Protect Dreamers and parents of U.S. citizen children
End the public charge rule (form I-944)
Provide a path to citizenship for undocumented migrants living in the U.S.
Reduce immigration backlogs
Make it easier for spouses and children of Green Card holders to come to the United States
End the 3/10 year bar
Expand protections for victims of human trafficking and sex trafficking
Provide stronger work-place protections for non-citizen and undocumented workers
End workplace and community raids
Re-instate prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases
Prioritize alternatives to detention and end the practice of holding non-citizens for long periods
Consider expanding TPS (Temporary Protected Status) for people from war-torn countries
In terms of enforcement, prioritize criminals and others who threaten our national security
Reform employment-based visas for immigrant and non-immigrant workers
Provide more support services for new immigrants, so they can better integrate into U.S. society
End the use of for-profit detention centers
Increase the number of refugees admitted into the country
The Democratic Party Platform stands for the radical notion that non-citizens are human beings.
The Platform also contains a number of proposals that relate more specifically to asylum–
End policies that make it more difficult for victims of gang violence and domestic violence to receive asylum
End the criminal prosecution of asylum seekers at the border and stop separating families
End policies designed to force asylum seekers to apply for protection in a “safe third country”
End the Migrant Protection Protocols (the “wait in Mexico” policy)
Send humanitarian resources to the border to deal with the migration crisis
Send more Asylum Officers to the border, and for asylum seekers who “pass” a credible fear interview, have an Asylum Officer–as opposed to an Immigration Judge–review the full case
Double the number of Immigration Judges, court staff, and interpreters
This is an ambitious agenda, and it is certainly more pro-immigrant than what we saw during the Obama Administration. Whether these goals can realistically be implemented, I do not know.
As for the proposals related to asylum, you can see that they are largely designed to reverse policies of the Trump Administration, and they mainly apply to migrants arriving at our Southern border. Mr. Trump’s policies have been abhorrent and ineffective (and not always legal), and so we obviously need to do something different at the border. The risk is that by deploying more resources to the border, the government will be unable to interview affirmative asylum seekers, thus further increasing the backlog. Also, if Mr. Biden’s policies encourage more migrants to come here, that could further strain the system and result in a political backlash.
In terms of changing the asylum law, Mr. Biden’s only substantive proposal is to reverse Trump-era restrictions on asylum for victims of domestic violence and criminal gangs. This is an important issue, since so many asylum seekers (especially from Central America) are fleeing these types of harm. Persecution by criminals and domestic partners has not traditionally been a basis for asylum eligibility. Over years of litigation, the scope of asylum protection has expanded to include LGBT individuals, victims of female genital mutilation, and to a lesser extent, victims of domestic and gang violence (under the rubric of “particular social group”). But since President Trump came into office, his Administration has been rolling back these gains, particularly with regard to persecution by criminal gangs and domestic partners. If Mr. Biden is elected and reverses this trend, more people would qualify for protection and lives will be saved, but this could also encourage more people to seek protection in our country.
To deal with this concern, Mr. Biden’s plan includes an effort to address the root causes of migration from Central America (violence, lawlessness, impunity, and poverty). Hopefully that would help improve the situation in those countries and mitigate the number of people seeking protection in the U.S. But in terms of our immigration system, more needs to be done.
Specifically, we need an honest national conversation about who should be eligible for asylum and how many asylum seekers we should admit. Unfortunately, in the current environment, this seems impossible. But until we can have such a conversation, and reach some semblance of a consensus, asylum will remain a political wedge issue and asylum seekers will continue suffering from backlogs and shifting eligibility standards. In the event that Joe Biden takes office in January, I hope that this conversation will be part of his agenda, and that he will work with Congress and the public to reach a sustainable solution for asylum seekers.
Overall, Mr. Biden’s asylum plans seem largely reactive–he wants to reverse the damage caused by the Trump Administration. But he is also advocating for a broad immigration reform, which would benefit many non-citizens, including many asylum seekers. Even if all he did was speak truthfully about migration and respect the law, Mr. Biden would be a vast improvement over what we have now. Let us all resolve to do what we can to help Mr. Biden succeed in November and beyond.
The U.S. immigration system is a disaster. Hundreds of thousands of applicants are stuck in limbo, many cases are arbitrarily denied, and due process protections have been reduced or eliminated. While it is still possible to win individual cases, the Trump Administration has done everything possible–legal and illegal–to block asylum seekers and immigrants, and to undermine the fair implementation of our nation’s immigration laws. With the immigration system under attack, the only way to protect individual immigrants is to defend that system. But how?
Over the last 3½ years, non-citizens and their advocates have done their best to defend the immigration system. Lawsuits have sought to mitigate the Muslim ban, “remain in Mexico,” the public charge rules, and so on. Advocacy work has had some successes as well–allowing foreign students to remain in the U.S. and reducing the number of children in cages. All of these efforts have been something of a rear-guard action–trying to keep the retreat from becoming a route.
Now, with the election approaching, there is a chance to achieve real change. If Joe Biden and the Democrats take the White House, we can expect an end to many of the most egregious attacks on non-citizens. No one has a bigger stake in this election than asylum seekers and other non-citizens. But of course, as non-citizens, you are not permitted to vote or donate money to Mr. Biden or the Democrats. But that doesn’t mean you can’t participate in the election campaign. Here, we’ll talk about what you, as a non-U.S. citizen, can and cannot do. Let’s start with the cannots.
Before they can help us, we have to help them.
You cannot vote. It is illegal for anyone but a U.S. citizen to vote in a federal election. Non-citizens who vote can face fines, jail time, and deportation.
A “foreign national” cannot contribute money to a campaign, even if that contribution is indirect (for example, through a political action committee). “Foreign national” is defined as an “individual who is not a citizen of the United States… and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” Thus, if you are a non-citizen, but you have a Green Card, you are permitted to donate money to a political campaign. Note that if you have applied for a Green Card or asylum or any other immigration benefit, and you have not yet received that benefit, you cannot legally contribute money to a campaign. Even if you have an Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”), you are not eligible to make a contribution.
Also, foreign nationals cannot make “decisions concerning the administration of any political committee,” meaning basically that you cannot take a leadership or decision-making role in a campaign or an organization supporting a campaign or candidate.
Finally, foreign nationals cannot work for a candidate and receive compensation from anyone.
So much for the cannots. Now let’s look at what a non-citizen can do to help during the upcoming election.
The main thing you can do to participate in the election is to volunteer with a candidate. The Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) website provides guidance for foreign nationals who wish to volunteer during an election–
Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer “exemption” as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone.
What do volunteers do? The most important activity for volunteers is to encourage people to register and vote. You can do this by making phone calls to potential voters. Here, the ability to speak different languages might be very useful. There are many new Americans, who are eligible to vote, but who might be more comfortable speaking in their native language. The phone calls can be made from your own home (using an app, which does not reveal your personal phone number) and the people you are calling tend to be happy to hear from you, as they have been selected because they are predisposed to vote for a Democrat. The purpose of the call is to ensure that they are registered to vote, and that they know how to vote when the time comes.
You can also participate by sending text messages to prospective voters. Again, you can do this from home, and it really does help.
There are other volunteer opportunities available as well, not only for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, but for “down ballot” candidates, whose election is also very important for protecting non-citizens (and all of us). For calling and texting, and other types of volunteer work, the Biden campaign provides training and support. To learn more, and get in touch with a volunteer coordinator, contact the Biden campaign here. Make sure they understand your immigration status, so they can put you to work in an appropriate capacity.
Finally, according to a federal court decision (penned by now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh no less), the foreign national ban–
does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues. It restrains them only from a certain form of expressive activity closely tied to the voting process—providing money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.
Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 290 (D.D.C. 2011), aff’d 132 S. Ct. 1087 (2012). Thus, it may be possible to make financial contributions to non-political “issue” organizations that do not mention candidates, political offices, political parties, incumbent federal officeholders or any past or future election. See AO 1984-41 (National Conservative Foundation). If you plan to contribute financially, check with the beneficiary organization to be sure that your immigration status is not a bar (and remember that Green Card holders may freely engage in political activity and make donations, as long as they do not vote).
There is a lot riding on the November election. Unfortunately, President Trump has used fear and division to mobilize many people. He has also attacked the rule of law, due process, and democracy itself. We need everyone–including non-citizens waiting to officially join our nation–to help elect Joe Biden and to preserve the republic for us all.
In 1993, Tara Reade was a legislative aid for then-Senator Joe Biden. In 2019, she went public with an allegation that Mr. Biden “used to put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck.” She says she complained about the behavior after it happened, but then faced retaliation, which caused her to leave her job. In March of this year, Ms. Reade stated that on one occasion, when she was alone with Senator Biden, he pushed her against the wall “and then his hands were on me and underneath my clothes. And then he went down my skirt, but then up inside it and he penetrated me with his fingers. And he was kissing me….” In her 2020 statement, Ms. Reade indicated that she made a contemporaneous complaint alleging sexual harassment, but not sexual assault. Several people–including Ms. Reade’s brother and a friend–have stated that she told them about the assault years ago, and there is some evidence that Ms. Reade made a complaint during her time in the Senate.
Ms. Reade’s allegations got me thinking: How would her testimony and evidence be evaluated under the standard applied to asylum seekers testifying in Immigration Court? Let’s start with the legal standard, as set forth in INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii)—
[A] trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), 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.
For-Biden touching or Reade-iculous allegation? You decide.
So right away, we can see an issue: Ms. Reade states that she complained about sexual harassment in 1993 and she publicly claimed sexual harassment in 2019, but then in 2020, she stated that she was also the victim of a sexual assault. This is an inconsistency.
But an inconsistent statement is not necessarily fatal to a credibility determination. Applicants must be given an opportunity to explain any inconsistencies. In our case, Ms. Reade stated that she did not disclose the assault in 1993 because she was traumatized, and that she did not mention it in 2019 because she was uncomfortable with the interviewer’s questions and fearful of a backlash against her. She decided to reveal the full story in 2020 because she felt she needed to do so for her daughter and for other victims of sexual assault, and because she felt Joe Biden should apologize.
Once a witness provides an explanation, the decision-maker has a certain amount of leeway to evaluate that explanation. According to the Board of Immigration Appeals, “An Immigration Judge is not required to accept a respondent’s assertions, even if plausible, where there are other permissible views of the evidence based on the record.” Where does this leave us? Nowhere too helpful, I would submit.
On the one hand, we could find Ms. Reade’s testimony incredible, since it has changed over time and her most recent (and most serious) allegations are different from what she allegedly claimed in 1993 and what she described in 2019. On the other hand, she has presented an explanation for the inconsistency, which is based on the trauma and shame she suffered, as well as on her fear of further harm. Given this evidence, a reasonable fact-finder could decide either way on credibility, and such a decision would likely survive an appeal (where factual findings are subject to a “clearly erroneous” standard of review).
Since the decision-maker could go either way, what would account for a particular decision? In Ms. Reade’s case, the decider’s view of sexual assault in general would be one factor. Do victims make false accusations? Do perpetrators deny their guilt? How much evidence is enough? In this particular case, I imagine partisan loyalty would also be a factor for many decision-makers, especially in such a hot political environment where an allegation of sexual assault could impact the upcoming election. And speaking of partisan loyalty, what about Ms. Reade’s political views? Are they relevant to impugning or bolstering her claim? What about the fact that she is exposing herself to terrible harassment (and maybe worse). How do we weigh these factors in terms of evaluating her motive? Also, how do we account for other women accusing Joe Biden of inappropriate touching? Do these allegations weigh against him (because he engaged in inappropriate conduct) or in his favor (since that conduct seems not to have risen to assault)? In short, it seems to me that the decision about Ms. Reade’s credibility tells us more about the fact-finder’s views than about the facts of her case.
If I am correct about Ms. Reade’s claim, what does this mean for credibility in asylum cases? In some ways, the situations are analogous. We have to listen to a witness and evaluate credibility. It’s also fairly common for asylum applicants to change their stories over time. This may be legitimate (it often takes time and trust to extract painful details from a traumatized person) or not (some applicants seek to bolster their claims by lying). As with Ms. Reade’s case, there is often additional evidence, which also needs to be evaluated for credibility and evidentiary value, and in cases where this evidence is strong, it may be determinative of credibility. In other cases, the credibility determination will depend largely on the decision-maker’s inherent biases. I suspect this is largely what accounts for the arbitrariness of asylum adjudication.
In Ms. Reade’s case, I doubt we will ever see a definitive answer about her claims. They are too old and too subsumed by partisanship to be resolved with much confidence. Many asylum claims are also not amenable to a definitive conclusion due largely to limited resources (of the applicant and the adjudicator). In both situations, we are left with our own biases, which are a poor substitute for knowing the truth.
