Let’s play a game. Below are a series of quotations. The speaker is either Donald Trump or Adolph Hitler. Your goal is to guess which leader made each statement. (more…)
I am an asylum attorney. I am also Jewish. In my role as a lawyer, I represent many Muslims and many people from the Middle East, including Palestinians. Today, I want to discuss what it means to be a Jewish attorney representing Palestinian asylum seekers during this time of conflict.
I’d like to start with a message I recently received from one of my Palestinian clients, about his family in Gaza. (more…)
The war between Hamas and Israel has prompted some American politicians to call for a ban on refugees from Gaza. Other politicos want to deport student protesters who express pro-Palestinian sentiments, or exclude Palestinians from the U.S. altogether.
I suppose that in a time of war, there’s an impulse to pick a side. Israel or Palestine. Muslim or Jew. Us or Them. And so in theory, I can understand why some leaders would want to punish those who appear to be supporting our adversaries. But as I see it, painting all Palestinians or all Muslims as Hamas supporters is counterproductive and harmful to our national interests, not to mention untrue. (more…)
They say that life is what happens while you’re making other plans. That’s true for death as well. I had no plans to write about Israel this week, but given the current conflict, I am finding it impossible to write about anything else. (more…)
One hundred years ago, in the aftermath of World War I, Britain, France, Turkey, and other nations signed the Treaty of Lausanne, which divided Kurdistan between what are today Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, and blocked the national aspirations of the Kurdish people. Since then, Kurds have endured persecution, war, cultural genocide, and mass killings.
As a result of these conditions, many Kurdish people have fled their homeland, and some have received asylum in the United States. One such asylee is Kani Xulam, who is now the director of the American Kurdish Information Network.
To call attention to the 100th anniversary of the partition of Kurdistan, Mr. Xulam recently walked from the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC to the United Nations in New York City. His journey covered more than 300 miles and took 24 days. (more…)
The governors of Texas, Arizona, and Florida have been transporting asylum seekers from the border to “sanctuary” jurisdictions, such as Washington, DC, New York City, Chicago, and Martha’s Vineyard. Many of these migrants have suffered persecution in their home countries and have undergone difficult and dangerous journeys to reach the United States. The governors have enticed them to travel from the border to other parts of the country by falsely promising them jobs, work permits, and other benefits. In most cases, the receiving localities have not been forewarned about the new arrivals, and so have had difficulty coordinating a humanitarian response.
Immigration advocates have referred to these transfers as a “cynical political game,” a “publicity stunt” and a “political ploy.” Others have called it an effort to “own the libs.” While I agree that lying to vulnerable people and manipulating them is cruel and immoral, I think we on the Left are not being honest or wise when we dismiss the migrant transports as mere political theater. The issues underlying the governors’ efforts are serious and we ignore those issues at our peril. (more…)
This article is by Stanislav Stanskikh, a Visiting Scholar at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Research Fellow at UNC-Chapel Hill, and founder of The New England Institute for Country Conditions Expertise. He may be reached here: stanskikh [at] countryconditions.expert
There is an ongoing debate about whether Russians fleeing political repressions and the military draft should be granted refuge in the United States and the West, or whether protection should be refused so that these potential refugees rebel against the Kremlin instead. Opponents also draw a line between “real” refugees and those who left Russia merely to save themselves despite their prior loyalty to the regime. While the Baltic countries and Poland are turning away new arrivals, Germany and some other EU members have extended their welcome by generously granting refugee status. The President of the European Council Charles Michel favors opening the EU to fleeing Russians.
What about the United States?
The longest-serving British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, passed away last week. The Queen leaves a complicated legacy that has touched many aspects of life in Britain and the world beyond. She became queen in 1952, when women with power were few and far between. For the next seven decades, she steered the monarchy into the modern era. While she served as a spiritual and moral leader for her nation and the British Commonwealth, she rarely opined about political issues. Perhaps her effort to stay “above” politics helped her serve as a unifying force in Great Britain, where she remained widely respected, admired, and loved until her death last week at age 96.
In this post, I want to remember one small, but significant, incident from the Queen’s long life–the very first public speech she gave as a 14-year old princess on BBC’s Children’s Hour. (more…)
USCIS recently announced a unique program to assist Ukrainians affected by the current war. Called Uniting for Ukraine, the program “provides a pathway for Ukrainian citizens and their immediate family members who are outside the United States to come to the United States and stay temporarily in a two-year period of parole.” The program is unique in that the Ukrainian beneficiaries must be chosen by U.S.-based sponsors. The government will vet the sponsors “to ensure that they are able to financially support the individual whom they agree to support” and then start the process of bringing the chosen Ukrainian to the United States.
Here, we’ll look at why the U.S. government created this program and how it works. (more…)
A new report from Human Rights Watch documents the fate of dozens of Cameroonian asylum seekers deported to their country between 2019 and 2021. According to HRW, people deported to Cameroon “faced arbitrary arrest and detention; enforced disappearances; torture, rape, and other violence; extortion; unfair prosecutions; confiscation of their national IDs; harassment; and abuses against their relatives.” In addition, many also “reported experiencing excessive force, medical neglect, and other mistreatment in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody in the U.S.” Sadly, none of this is particularly surprising.
The portions of the report that I want to discuss here relate to asylum seeker confidentiality (or the lack thereof) and to the persecution of returnees because they sought asylum in the United States. (more…)
As an attorney who represents asylum seekers, I believe our country has a moral duty to help those coming to us for protection. I also believe that we as a nation benefit from our asylum system. Aside from enriching our country with patriotic, hard-working individuals, the asylum system makes manifest our highest ideals–freedom of religion and speech, democracy, equality, and women’s and minorities’ rights.
Unfortunately, those of us who support a robust humanitarian immigration system have not convinced enough of our countrymen on that point. Indeed, a poll of Trump voters found that their #2 and #3 most important issues are more secure borders and a more restrictive immigration system (the #1 issue for these voters was preservation of individual rights). Contrast that with Biden voters, who feel less strongly about reducing barriers to migration (ranking “being open to immigration” as the #27 most important issue facing our country, out of 55 issues surveyed).
There is little doubt that these views find expression in the voting booth–President Trump based his 2016 campaign on anti-immigration themes and we know how that turned out. (more…)
The Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition (TASSC) International will hold its annual conference and advocacy days from June 23 to 26, 2021. The theme of this year’s conference is “The Asylum Crisis in the USA.” This is a great opportunity to learn about the challenges facing the U.S. asylum system–and to do something about it. All events (including advocacy) will be held online and are free. In support of the conference and its goals, from today until June 30, all proceeds from my new book, The Asylumist: How to Seek Asylum in the United States and Keep Your Sanity, will go to TASSC International!
TASSC is an amazing organization consisting of torture survivors and asylum seekers who help and support each other. Speakers at the event will include torture survivors, advocates, mental health professionals, and lawyers (including yours truly–on June 23rd at 11:30 AM).
The first day of the conference features a number of important topics, including a discussion about the asylum system’s failures and challenges, survivor resilience, and advocating for a humane asylum system. There will also be a training for people participating in the advocacy days (on June 24 and 25). (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.
As I write, we still have no decision, and the election rests on the edge of knife. Perhaps Joe Biden will manage to pull out a win, but I am personally feeling deeply pessimistic. Once again Donald Trump has proved the pollsters wrong and he and his fellow Republicans have exceeded expectations. There will be time later to ask “What Happened?” (as Hillary Clinton did after the 2016 election), but here I want to reflect on a few more personal notes.
First, for me at least, yesterday was not all bad. My intrepid associate and I were in Immigration Court representing a gay man from Russia. His case was pretty typical: He suffered many threats (in person and spray painted on his door), he was beaten up a few times (once ending up in the hospital for three days), ostracized by his schoolmates, mentally and physically abused by his parents. You know, the usual for a gay person in Russia. He also happens to be a popular blogger, with some of his posts garnering close to one million views, but this work was done anonymously and so was not something we could hang our hat on. After testimony, DHS opposed asylum. The Immigration Judge explained his reasoning and why he felt that the harm suffered rose to the level of persecution. He also explained why country condition evidence convinced him that there was a likelihood of future harm. After he explained himself, the DHS attorney agreed not to appeal and our client walked out of court as an asylee.
Having done enough of these cases, I can tell a strong case from a weak one, and this case was fairly strong, and so I believe the outcome was correct under existing law and precedent. But there is more here than that. The Immigration Judge listened to our client, and so did DHS. They were polite and professional. They were respectful. The DHS attorney challenged my client on certain portions of his story. That is her job and she did it courteously but firmly. In short, the system worked for my client because the IJ and the DHS attorney respect the rule of law and believe in due process. When I have a case with this judge and with this government attorney, I know that even if my client loses (which we sometimes do), we will have been heard and treated fairly. This is Justice. And though our immigration system is under daily assault, Justice can sometimes still be found almost four years into the Trump Presidency.
Second, as I was perusing Facebook during my copious free time, I noticed a photo posted by a former asylum client, now a U.S. citizen. He was voting. Then I saw another, and another.
Once a person wins asylum, she must wait one year before applying for a Green Card. Once she applies, it used to take about a year to get the approval. Lately, that wait time has increased to over three years. Once the asylee gets a Green Card, she must wait four years to file for citizenship. The citizenship application typically takes another year or two. Finally, the former asylee becomes a United States citizen. So from asylum grant to U.S. citizenship can take anywhere from six to eight years, or more (and remember, before that, most people waited a few years to get asylum, so the total journey can easily be 10 or 12 years).
I have been in the business long enough that a number of my asylum clients are now citizens. Since my Facebook skills are such that I do not know how to block them from becoming my “friends” (I’m thinking of you, Ali), I get to see what they are up to here in the States.
The voters I saw were a woman’s rights activist who created an organization to educate hundreds of young women and girls in Afghanistan. She was threatened by the Taliban and forced to flee to the United States. There were veterans of the Green Revolution in Iran–activists who stood up to that vicious regime in an effort to move their country towards democracy. There was a democracy activist from Egypt and a journalist from Pakistan. There were family members of a diplomat who was assassinated in his country.
Most of these new citizens continue to engage in political activity to support democracy and human rights in their homelands. All are working productively in the United States.
Whatever the results of the election, and whatever the opinion of my fellow Americans about asylum seekers and refugees, I know the truth because I see it with my own eyes every day. Asylum seekers, refugees, and immigrants are some of the most patriotic people I know. They contribute mightily to our nation. And despite all its flaws, they still believe in America, and in the American dream. Their goodness and their faith help me to try to believe as well.
In the latest outrageous move against non-citizens, the Trump Administration seems to be eliminating a long-standing program that allows people with serious medical conditions and their caregivers to remain in the United States beyond the normal period of stay. The change means that children and adults with cancer, leukemia, AIDS, and other serious health problems could be deported to their deaths.
The program on the chopping block is known as deferred action. It is basically a form of prosecutorial discretion. The government simply chooses not to initiate deportation proceedings against a person who is in the U.S. without status. In some cases, the person may receive permission to work. A person could receive deferred action for different reasons, but for the cases at issue here, the non-citizens were permitted to remain in the U.S. due to serious–and often life-threatening–health problems. Here is a statement from USCIS, as conveyed to the American Immigration Lawyers Association–
USCIS field offices will no longer consider non-military requests for deferred action, to instead focus agency resources on faithfully administering our nation’s lawful immigration system. This redirection of agency resources does not affect DACA or other deferred action requests processed at USCIS service centers under other policies, regulations, or court orders (such as VAWA deferred action and deferred action related to the U nonimmigrant status waiting list). As deferred action is a type of prosecutorial discretion used to delay removal from the United States, USCIS will generally defer to the DHS component agency responsible for removing individuals from the United States – U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – to make most non-DACA, non-military deferred action determinations.
USCIS confirmed that this change became effective on August 7, 2019, and that no public notice about the change was issued. The public is being informed about the change on an individual, case by case basis.
This basically means that medial patients and their caregivers who applied for deferred action may now be denied. The denial letters that I have seen in the press indicate that applicants have 33 days to leave the United States or face removal proceedings. The letters do not indicate how these medical patients can apply to ICE for deferred action, and at this stage, it is unclear whether ICE is even accepting such applications.
You can imagine how these denials would affect sick people (many of whom are children) who suddenly learn that they have to leave the U.S. and quite possibly lose their medical treatment. Here is a statement from Jonathan Sanchez, who has cystic fibrosis and whose sister earlier died from the same disease:
“If they deny the program, then I need to go back to my country [Honduras], and I’ll probably die because in my country, there’s no treatment for CF [cystic fibrosis],” Sanchez said, crying and trying to catch his breath. “Doctors don’t even know what’s the disease. The only ones who can help me are here in the United States.”
Even if he is ultimately allowed to remain here for treatment, the idea that this boy has been threatened with deportation at a time when he is fighting for his life is a true horror. From my point of view, the fact that we are even having this conversation is extraordinarily repulsive. That our country would mistreat people–especially children–in this manner is a black stain on our nation (one of many, unfortunately). All that said, the question I want to address here is, Can these medical patients (and their family members/caregivers) make a viable claim for asylum, so that they can try to remain in the country?
First, to receive asylum, you need to demonstrate that you filed for asylum within one year of arriving in the United States. There are exceptions to this rule, and if you have (or had) deferred action, you may meet such an exception (the “extraordinary circumstances” exception). However, once deferred action ends, you must file within a “reasonable” period of time; otherwise the asylum application will be considered untimely filed, and it will be denied. What is a reasonable period of time? There is no set definition, and I have seen cases indicating that two or three months is reasonable, but six months is not reasonable. So the bottom line is, if your deferred action ends and you want to request asylum, you should file your application as soon as possible.
Second, in some deferred action cases, more than one family member is in the United States (for example, a sick child and a caregiver parent). Certain family members can file for asylum together, and so it is worth considering which family member, if any, has a viable asylum case. An adult asylum applicant can include a spouse and any minor, unmarried children in her asylum case. A child who is over 21, or who is married, cannot be included in a parent’s asylum application. An unmarried couple would each have to file their own application for asylum. A child with his own asylum case cannot include a parent in that case (though sometimes when a child faces persecution, the parent can articulate her own, independent claim – an example might be where the child faces FGM or female genital mutilation, and the parent faces harm for trying to protect the child). So you have to think about who in the family might have a claim for asylum, and whether all family members could be included in that application.
Third, if a person was persecuted in the past–even the distant past–based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or particular social group, he may be eligible for “humanitarian” asylum or “other serious harm” asylum. Humanitarian asylum is available to people who have faced severe persecution in the past. Even if the country is now safe, we allow the person to remain in the United States rather than force him to go back to a place where he faced terrible harm. I once did such a case for a Rwandan woman whose family was massacred during the genocide, when she was only 11 years old. The Immigration Judge found that the harm she suffered qualified her for humanitarian asylum, even if it would be safe for her in Rwanda today. Other serious harm asylum is for people who suffered persecution in the past based on their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or particular social group. If such a person would face any other serious harm today, even if that harm is not on account of a protected ground, she can qualify for asylum. So for example, if a woman was subject to FGM as a child (FGM is persecution on account of a particular social group) and today, she faces harm due to a lack of medical treatment for cancer, she might qualify for “other serious harm” asylum.
Finally, what if there is no basis for asylum other than the medical condition itself? Such cases are often difficult, since there needs to be a “persecutor” – someone who wants to harm the asylum applicant. Poor hospital conditions or lack of medical care–without more–would not normally qualify for asylum protection. But sometimes, people with medical conditions face discrimination that rises to the level of persecution. For instance, we once obtained protection for a Mexican man who was HIV positive. We argued that discrimination in Mexico was so severe that his life would be at risk there. For people from countries where law and order has broken down, one argument might be that people with medical conditions will be targeted by criminals or member of society due to their particular vulnerabilities. Central American countries with rampant gang issues may be places where vulnerable people are specifically targeted by gang members, and maybe that could form the basis for an asylum claim. Other medical conditions, such as albinism, are so stigmatized in certain societies that people with those conditions face harm or death. The key to cases like these often involves obtaining country condition information that demonstrates the danger faced by people with medical conditions. Specific examples of people who were harmed can also help. For example, we did a case where a Turkish man faced imprisonment for political reasons. The man had leukemia, and so we argued that even a short imprisonment would be life threatening. We supported our claim with newspaper articles about people who died in prison due to health problems. These articles demonstrated that the harm faced, at least for this specific person, was severe enough to qualify him for asylum.
The status of deferred action cases is still unclear. Will ICE announce a procedure for people with serious medical conditions to apply for deferred removal? Will USCIS respond to the backlash and re-institute the program? It now appears that cases filed before August 7, 2019, which were denied, are now being reopened, but the fate of the program going forward seems uncertain (at best). For those affected, it is important to start thinking about alternatives. One such option may be asylum; other options may exist as well, depending on the case. Talk to a lawyer, and if you cannot afford a lawyer, remember that free or low-cost help is available. Unfortunately, this new change affects the most vulnerable, and it is easy to lose hope. But there are many people who want to help, and the sooner you take action, the more likely you are to find an alternative way to remain in the United States.