To Win Asylum, Consistency Is Key

It’s nearly impossible to win an asylum case if the Asylum Officer or Immigration Judge does not believe your story. But how do decision-makers determine whether an applicant is telling the truth or lying? In other words, how do they decide whether the applicant is credible?

There are a number of methods to evaluate credibility: Whether the applicant’s story is plausible (i.e., whether it makes sense in the context of country conditions), whether the person can describe details that we would expect her to know (for example, if she was a political activists, she should know something about her political party), and whether the applicant’s statement is consistent with the other evidence and testimony in the case. Today, I want to discuss “consistency,” since inconsistent statements are probably the most common basis for concluding that an applicant is not credible. (more…)

Breaking Down the 2023 Immigration Court Data

Data from the Executive Office for Immigration Review–the office that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts–is notoriously unreliable. Nevertheless, we have to use what’s available. In that spirit, let’s take a look at EOIR’s statistics for Fiscal Year 2023 (which cover the period from October 1, 2022 to September 30, 2023) and see what we can learn. (more…)

Immigration Predictions for 2024

Welcome to 2024! What better way to start off the New Year than with some predictions!

Just so you know, if some of these prognostications seem a bit negative, there is no need to worry: My success rate with prophesying is quite low, and so hopefully, I will be wrong. With that disclaimer out of the way, let’s get started. And remember, if any of these predictions happen to come true, you heard it here first! (more…)

The Incredible Exploding Backlog

For years, the asylum backlogs in Immigration Court and the Asylum Office have been growing rapidly. But lately, they’ve been growing RAPIDLY–with a capital “R”. And a capital “APIDLY”. Probably I should add a few exclamation marks (!!!) after that and at least one “very” before it. What I’m trying to say is, of late, the backlogs have been growing at an insane rate.

Here, we’ll talk about what is happening and why, and try to guess what it all means for asylum seekers. (more…)

Asylum Data from Immigration Court Raises More Questions Than It Answers

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the organization that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts, has released new data about asylum grant rates by country of origin. While EOIR deserves credit for trying to be more transparent, it is difficult to know what to make of these numbers. They are confusing, poorly organized, and–for lack of a better word–strange.

Here, we’ll take a look at the data and try to parse some meaning from EOIR’s madness. (more…)

Asylum: Journey Into the Unknown

It is the job of a lawyer to learn about your situation and then advise you of your options. You want to know, “If I do X, what will happen?” In many areas of the law, attorneys can provide this type of advice. If you rob a bank and get caught, you will go to jail. If you sign a contract and then breach your agreement, you will be liable for damages. If you fail to pay taxes, you will face criminal and civil penalties.

But in immigration law–and particularly in asylum law–it is often impossible to provide precise advice. The unfortunate fact is that asylum seekers must live with significant uncertainty. (more…)

AILA Prepares Sensible New Report on Asylum for the U.S. Government to Ignore

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) surveyed more than 300 immigration lawyers (including yours truly) about asylum and has issued a new report with findings and recommendations: High-Stakes Asylum: How Long an Asylum Case Takes and How We Can Do Better.

The report makes some useful suggestions for improving the system, and it is well worth a look. It also has some significant flaws (at least in my opinion). As I see it, though, the biggest problem–as usual for these types of things–is how to prevent the U.S. government from simply ignoring the report and continuing on its merry way. (more…)

Winning Old Asylum Cases

As you probably know, asylum applicants often wait years for their interview or court hearing. Some cases get stronger with time, but most do not. Sometimes, country conditions improve or change in a way that makes it more difficult to win asylum. Other times, the asylum laws or regulations change in a way that is unfavorable. More commonly, the very fact that an applicant has been away from her home country for a long time makes it seem less likely that she will be harmed if she returns. The Immigration Judge or Asylum Officer will want to know why anyone back home would still remember you, let alone want to harm you, after so much time outside the country.

If you’ve been waiting for a long time for your Asylum Office interview or Immigration Court hearing, and you think your case has become weaker, what can you do? (more…)

The Logic of Making You Wait (and Wait and Wait and Wait…)

If you are one of the 3+ million people waiting for your case in Immigration Court or at the Asylum Office, you might ask yourself, Why is my case taking so long? Of course you know the basic reason: Too many cases and too few people to work on those cases. But why is the system designed this way? Why can’t we have enough Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers so that cases are processed in a timely manner?

Here’s my theory: The system was purposefully created to make you wait. (more…)

The Difference (or Lack Thereof) Between “Democratic” and “Republican” Immigration Judges

Question: Who do you think is more likely to deny an asylum case, an Immigration Judge appointed by a Republican president or an Immigration Judge appointed by a Democratic president?

As far as I can tell, no one has ever researched this question before; so our team of statisticians here at The Asylumist spent the last few months crunching the numbers, and we now have our answer. If you’re like me, you might find their conclusion a bit surprising. (more…)

Another Dumb Idea from EOIR

Here’s one thing that seems clear about the management at EOIR–the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the office that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts–no one who works there has ever represented a noncitizen in Immigration Court. How do I know? If the leadership at EOIR had any experience in court or with clients, they would not be implementing so many misguided, destructive, and ineffective policies that are doing great harm to immigrants, their attorneys, and even to DHS attorneys (the prosecutors in court).

The latest dumb idea involves an effort to administratively close cases where the respondent (the noncitizen in Immigration Court) may have some temporary or permanent relief available from USCIS. (more…)

The Benefits and Burdens of Court-Appointed Lawyers

The Associated Press recently reported that DHS will implement a “limited experiment” to provide detained migrants at the border with “access to legal counsel.” The new approach will start with a “tiny number of migrants,” and then perhaps expand from there. DHS is partnering with an as-yet-unnamed organization to supply the attorneys, who will help with credible fear interviews (initial evaluations of asylum eligibility for newly arriving migrants). The program is part of DHS’s efforts to accommodate the end of Title 42, which had restricted the number of people eligible to seek asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, and which is expected to wrap up in a few weeks.

This new “limited experiment” calls to mind the ongoing effort by advocates to create an immigration public defender’s service, which would provide everyone in Immigration Court access to a lawyer. These efforts have not made much progress, and currently, very few noncitizens in Immigration Court receive a government-appointed attorney.

Here, I want to discuss the benefits of universal representation for asylum seekers, including those in court and at the Asylum Office. I also want to suggest an alternative to representation by lawyers, who are expensive and relatively scarce. (more…)

Immigration Judges Repudiate Asylum Officers (redux)

I recently saw a shocking statistic: 76% of cases denied by the Asylum Office and referred to Immigration Court were granted by Immigration Judges. If this number is accurate (and the source–TRAC Immigration–has always been very reliable), it means that IJs essentially overrule Asylum Officer denials in 3 out of 4 cases. Put another way, Immigration Judges are finding that Asylum Officers make the wrong decision in most of their cases. Can this really be true? What’s going on here? (more…)

Court Chaos Creates Collateral Consequences

Immigration Courts across the U.S. have been randomly rescheduling and advancing cases without regard to attorney availability or whether we have the capacity to complete our cases. The very predictable result of this fiasco is that lawyers are stressed and overworked, our ability to adequately prepare cases has been reduced, and–worst of all–asylum seekers are being deprived of their right to a fair hearing. Besides these obvious consequences, the policy of reshuffling court cases is having other insidious effects that are less visible, but no less damaging. Here, I want to talk about some of the ongoing collateral damage caused by EOIR’s decision to toss aside due process of law in favor of reducing the Immigration Court backlog. (more…)

Judging the Judges in Immigration Court

To paraphrase Forrest Gump, Immigration Court is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you’re going to get. Also, some of the chocolate is poison.

For many applicants in Immigration Court, the most important factor in determining success is not the person’s story or the evidence or the quality of their lawyer. It is the judge who is randomly assigned to the case. According to TRAC Immigration, a non-profit that tracks asylum approval rates in Immigration Court, Immigration Judge (“IJ”) approval rates vary widely. For the period 2017 to 2022, asylum approval rates ranged from 0% (a judge in Houston) to 99% (a judge in San Francisco). Of the 635 IJs listed on the TRAC web page, 125 granted asylum in less than 10% of their cases. At the other extreme, nine IJs granted asylum more than 90% of the time.

Based solely on these numbers, there is a 20% chance (1 in 5) that your IJ denies at least 90% of the asylum cases that he adjudicates. That’s pretty frightening. But there is much more to the story, which we will explore below. (more…)