The Prevalence of Evidence

by Jason Dzubow

If the asylum seeker’s affidavit is the heart of her application, evidence might be considered the lungs: It provides the oxygen that allows the heart to function. Or maybe anatomical analogies are just weird. The point is, evidence in support of an asylum application is crucial to the application’s success. But what is evidence? And what happens if you can’t get it?

An asylum attorney prepares to file evidence in his case.

Let’s start with a bit about the law. The REAL ID Act of 2005 provides–

The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee. In determining whether the applicant has met the applicant’s burden, the trier of fact may weigh the credible testimony along with other evidence of record. Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.

See INA 208(b)(1)(B) (emphasis added). In other words, if you claim that something happened (you were unlawfully detained), you are required to provide evidence about it (a police document), and if you are unable to provide such evidence, you should be prepared to explain why you could not get the evidence (maybe the police in your country don’t issue receipts for illegally arresting people).

What this means is that you should try to get evidence supporting your case. Different lawyers may have different views on this, but I think you should get evidence for every claim you make in your affidavit and I-589. That includes evidence not directly related to the asylum claims, such as evidence of education, employment, awards and certificates, membership in organizations and religious institutions, travel to third countries, documents used to obtain your U.S. visa(s), birth certificates for you and your immediate family members, all passports for you and your immediate family members, marriage and divorce documents, national ID cards, military service records, arrest records, and general medical records. In other words, evidence about who you are and what you’ve been doing with your life.

Of course, you also need to get evidence related to your asylum claim. So if you were arrested, harmed or threatened, get evidence about what happened: Police and court documents, medical records and photos of injuries/scars, copies of any threats. If your case involves political activity in your country or elsewhere (including the U.S.), get party membership cards, receipts, letters from the party, and photos at political events. If it is a religious case, get evidence of your religion: Letters from church leaders and/or members, photos at religious events, certificates, membership documents, and government IDs, which sometimes list religion. If the case is based on nationality, ethnicity or race, get evidence that you belong to the group in question, such as identity documents.

For people claiming asylum based on membership in a particular social group (“PSG”), the evidence needed depends on the group. For LGBT cases, get evidence of sexual orientation, such as membership in gay rights groups and evidence of past relationships. If your PSG involves family members, get evidence of familial relationships–birth and marriage certificates, photos, and other family documents, including evidence that other members of your family were harmed or threatened. If you have a domestic violence case, get evidence of the relationship (marriage certificate, birth certificates of children, photos together, other documentation that you were in a relationship) and of the harm.

If there are newspaper or magazine articles, country reports or human rights reports–or even blog posts or Facebook posts–that support your asylum claim, include those. If you are using a newspaper or magazine, make sure to include the cover page of the newspaper, and the entire article. If you are using an on-line resource, make sure to include the website address.

You should also get letters from family members, friends, and colleagues who can attest to your problems (I’ve posted about how to write a good letter here). In many cases, it is impossible to get direct evidence of harm, and so letters from people attesting to your problems is all that you can get. While letters from family members and friends are not as valuable as more direct evidence, they are still valuable, and we always include such letters if we can get them.

Some people have scars or other evidence of physical harm (including FGM). In such cases, you should get a forensic medical report to help bolster your claim about how you received the scar (in other words, that the scar was caused by torture as opposed to a car accident or disease). Of course, the doctors who write such reports do not know for sure how you received a particular scar. But they can state that the scar is consistent with your explanation of how it was received. If you cannot afford a forensic exam (or find a doctor to do the exam pro bono), at least take photos of the scars and include them with your evidence. Normally, we have our clients take a close-up of the scar and also a photo from further away, so we can see the person’s face (so we know the scar is on that particular person’s body).

We also sometimes submit other types of expert reports. The most common are psychological reports (that indicate PTSD, for example). In my opinion, the most effective reports are the ones created in the course of treatment. The less effective reports are created after one or two meetings with the asylum seeker, and were clearly created for purposes of the asylum case. Sometimes, we also use expert reports related to country conditions, though these days, we can usually find what we need on the internet.

If any of your close family members applied for or received asylum, refugee or other humanitarian status (including SIV status) in the U.S. or abroad, try to get evidence of that status. In general, it is very helpful to show that other family members, who are often similarly situated, have been persecuted or have already received asylum. Indeed, we recently did a case in Texas where our client’s close family members all had SIV status (meaning that the U.S. government determined those family members faced a threat in the home country due to their cooperation with the U.S.). This evidence alone was enough to convince the Judge to grant asylum to our client.

You should also submit country condition information. Some lawyers submits lots of country condition information. I am not one of those lawyers. I think that redundant reports are counterproductive and distracting. It is standard procedure to submit the U.S. State Department Report on Human Rights Practices (or at least an excerpt of the relevant portions). Also, if applicable, we submit the State Department Report on International Religious Freedom. If those reports are not sufficient, we submits reports from other credible organizations, like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International. There are also lots of issue-specific reports from groups like the Committee to Protect Journalists, Doctors Without Borders, and International Christian Concern, to name a few. If there are news articles from credible sources, we submit those too (if they are relevant and not redundant). Finally, if there are specific articles or reports from less-reliable sources that speak directly to the issues in the case, we submit those as well.

Of course, any documents not in English need to be properly translated.

Finally, it is important to review all the evidence to ensure that it is consistent with your statement and with the other evidence submitted (for example, if your statement says that you lived in a red house, your witness letters should not say that you lived in a blue house). Inconsistent evidence can lead to a determination that you are not credible, so be careful about this.

The evidence for each applicant is case specific. If you have an attorney, one of the attorney’s jobs is to evaluate your case and determine what evidence is helpful. If you do not have an attorney, you should still do your best to obtain as much evidence as possible. This will help increase your chances for a successful outcome.

Continue reading

284 Comments

The Philosophy Behind the Asylum Affidavit

by Jason Dzubow

If you ask three lawyers how to write an asylum affidavit, you’re likely to get three (or more) opinions.

An applicant’s affidavit is the heart of her asylum case. It explains who she is, what happened to her, and why she needs protection. It’s also an opportunity to address weak points in the case and to mitigate inconsistencies that may have come up in prior encounters with U.S. government officials.

The debate about whether bigger is better goes all the way back to Affidavit and Goliath.
The debate about whether bigger is better goes all the way back to Affidavit and Goliath.

Given how important it is, it’s not surprising that different lawyers have different ideas about how to write a good affidavit. Some lawyers write long, very detailed affidavits. Others write short, perfunctory affidavits or do not write affidavits at all. Most of us–including me–fall somewhere in the middle.

There’s probably no “right” answer here, but for me, at least, the arguments for a detailed–but not too detailed–affidavit are the most convincing.

One problem with providing a lot of detail in an affidavit is that it creates more opportunities for inconsistencies: If there are more facts in the affidavit, the applicant has more to remember. For example, if the written statement indicates that the applicant ate peppered tuna with Nicoise salad before he was arrested, he better say that he ate peppered tuna with Nicoise salad when he testifies. Otherwise, the adjudicator might take the inconsistency as a lie, which could cause the applicant to lose his case.

Taken to an extreme, the concern about consistency between the written and oral testimony might suggest that the best approach is a less-detailed affidavit, or even that no affidavit is needed at all. From the attorney’s point of view, this would be nice, since the affidavit represents a large portion of the work we do. And it’s always convenient when the best interest of the client (avoiding inconsistencies) and the best interest of the lawyer (laziness) are aligned.

However, I think there is a major risk involved with using a minimal (or non-existent) affidavit. First, under the REAL ID Act, an applicant is required to submit evidence when it is available. Typically, this consists of letters attesting to the persecution or other aspects of the case, medical reports, police records, and country condition information. Many of these documents will include dates (for example, a letter might indicate that the applicant was arrested on May 15, 2010) or other details. It is important that the applicant herself is aware of all these dates and details, and that her testimony is consist with them. Writing an affidavit, and having the applicant read it, is one way to help ensure consistency between the applicant’s testimony and her supporting evidence.

Also, the affidavit is useful for ensuring consistency between all the different pieces of evidence. Instead of comparing each letter to every other letter, you need only compare each letter to the affidavit. As long as every document is consistent with the affidavit, every document should be consistent with every other document. And if everything is consistent, it bolsters the applicant’s credibility.

I suppose you could write out the affidavit to help the applicant with his story and to help ensure consistency, but then not give the affidavit to the Asylum Officer or Immigration Judge. In this way, you would gain the benefits of having an affidavit while avoiding the risk of inconsistencies created by submitting the affidavit. But I’m not a fan of this approach, as I think the affidavit benefits the decision-maker in several ways. For one thing, it gives the decision-maker a detailed understanding of the case, which, if presented correctly, should go a long way towards producing a successful outcome.

Second, it allows the applicant to point out and mitigate weak points in his case. Most Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges are pretty smart, and they’re experienced enough to hone in on problems in a case. If the problems can be overcome and explained in the affidavit, it will help satisfy the decision-maker before she even meets the applicant. This will allow the decision-maker to focus on the portions of the case that you want to emphasize.

In addition, in court, an applicant’s oral testimony is often incomplete. Court testimony is commonly truncated to save time (especially where the Immigration Judge and DHS attorney are already familiar with the story from the affidavit and thus do not need to hear the applicant repeat his entire tale). Should the application for asylum be denied, the affidavit is useful on appeal, and many lawyers–including yours truly–have used affidavit testimony to help win an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals or the federal circuit court.

So for all these reasons, I think a comprehensive affidavit is beneficial to the case. But of course, it is possible to include too much detail, which can trip up an applicant. The trick is to find the balance between providing the necessary information to convince the decision-maker and to humanize the client, but not so much information that the client can’t keep track of it all and the legally-relevant facts become obscured by irrelevant detail. Enough, but not too much. It’s an art, not a science, and with experience, each lawyer develops a style that works for his clients and hopefully helps achieve the clients’ goals.

Continue reading

127 Comments

The Asylum Affidavit, Part 3: TMI

by Jason Dzubow

This is the final (and much delayed)  installment in a series about preparing a client’s asylum affidavit.  I previously wrote about the importance of including enough detail to support a claim.  Today I want to discuss how to provide details about sensitive topics, like rape or the murder of a loved one.

Immigration Judges love reading well crafted affidavits.

For obvious reasons, most asylum applications involving discussing unpleasant events.  However, some events are more unpleasant than others.  For example, I worked on a case where my client witnessed the murder of her mother and siblings during a genocide in her country.  At the time of these murders, my client was just 11 years old.  In another case, a client was arrested while returning from a political rally.  While she was in custody, two policemen raped her.  In a third case, my client quit his political party and, in a revenge attack, he was shot six times and left for dead.

This is pretty horrific stuff, so how do you present these event in a credible manner without forcing the clients to re-live their trauma?

First, I think it is helpful if the client understands why he needs to explain the painful aspects of his case.  I am no expert, but I believe that when a client is educated about the requirements for asylum, he feels more in control of his case and this might make it easier for him to talk about past trauma. 

Second, it is important to establish a rapport with the client so she feels comfortable and safe discussing difficult issues.  While this may seem like a no-brainer, it is often difficult for busy attorneys to spend the extra time our clients need to make sure they are comfortable.

Third, it is often not necessary to provide a lot of detail about a traumatic event in order to establish past persecution.  For example, in my case–where the political activist was raped by the police while returning from a demonstration–we provided details about her political involvement, the demonstration, and her detention.  When it came to the actual rape, we stated that the police raped her, but we provided no further details about the incident.  If she has established her credibility and the fact finder believes that she has been raped, that is enough to prove past persecution.  USCIS has some good training materials for Asylum Officers, which discuss this point:

The asylum officer can elicit sufficient detail to establish credibility and gain an understanding of the basis of the claim without probing too deeply into all the details of a painful experience.

This is a key point–it is not necessary to provide all the details about an event like a rape.  The fact that the person was raped is, in-and-of-itself, sufficient to show past persecution.

Finally, and to their credit, Asylum Officers, DHS Trial Attorneys, and Immigration Judges tend to be very sensitive to an alien’s trauma.  I tell my clients about this, as I believe it helps reduce the level of intimidation and makes it easier for them to discuss their history.

While it is probably not possible to prepare a case without discussing traumatic events to some extent, it is possible–and important–to minimize the secondary trauma our clients suffer while preparing their asylum applications.

Continue reading

3 Comments

The Asylum Affidavit, Part 2: Details, Details…

by Jason Dzubow

This is the second part in a short series about helping asylum seekers prepare good affidavits.  The first posting dealt with the overuse of the passive voice.  Today, I want to discuss the appropriate level of detail that should be included in the affidavit.

One problem that I’ve encountered in many affidavits is that they contain too little detail for important topics and too much detail for irrelevant topics.  One reason for this is that victims of persecution often avoid focusing on the painful or depressing aspects of their cases–they do not want to re-live difficult memories.  Another reason is that the asylum seekers do not always understand what information is legally relevant.

An IJ enjoys another exciting asylum affidavit.

When preparing an affidavit, it is important to keep in mind the requirements for asylum–the applicant must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on a protected ground.  Often, the applicant has suffered past persecution, and this creates a presumption of future persecution.  In some cases, there are other legal issues: Did the applicant file within one year of her arrival in the U.S.?  Is there a material support issue?  Are there changed country conditions in the home country so that it is now safe to return there?  Once you know the legal issues in the case, you can focus on developing the factual record related to those issues.

The easiest example of this is past persecution.  In most cases, if an asylum applicant demonstrates past persecution based on race, religion, nationality, particular social group or political opinion, he will receive asylum.  To prove past persecution, the affidavit needs to provide sufficient detail about the claimed persecution so that the fact finder can evaluate whether the applicant was, in fact, persecuted.  If the affidavit merely says, “I was tortured” or “I was beaten,” that is insufficient. 

Various courts have defined the term “persecution,” and that definition includes “the infliction of suffering or harm.”  To demonstrate suffering or harm, the applicant must explain in detail what happened.  For example, instead of “I was beaten,” give some detail:

As soon as I left the opposition political party meeting, three policemen stopped me on the street.  They accused me of supporting the opposition party.  One of the men punched me in the stomach.  The blow was very painful and I could not breath for a few moments.  I fell onto the ground and I was in too much pain to stand up.  When I saw the armed policemen above me, I was afraid they might kill me.  While I was on the ground, another officer kicked me with his military boot in my back.  It felt like he broke my ribs and I cried out.  Afterwards, there was a large bruise on my back.

The affidavit here emphasizes why the police attacked (political opinion) and describes the details of the beating.  It also mentions that the physical assault was painful (since we are trying to demonstrate suffering).  It is questionable whether one punch and one kick would qualify as “past persecution,” but when you provide more details about the event, and explain how painful and frightening it was, you make it more likely that the fact finder will conclude that there was past persecution.

I like to think about the affidavit in terms of time.  For less important events, time moves quickly and one paragraph of the affidavit may cover days, months or years.  But for legally relevant events, such as a police beating, time slows down.  So one paragraph about a beating might cover only a few seconds.  Remember–the fact finder is not interested in reading a novel.  She just wants to know whether the applicant meets the requirements for asylum.  When the affidavit focuses on the legally relevant facts, it makes the job of the IJ or the Asylum Officer easier.  And a happy fact finder is more likely to grant relief.

One final point about adding more details to the affidavit.  I find that such details are quite helpful in the event of an appeal to the BIA.  In many cases, there is limited time for testimony, and applicants sometimes gloss over details of the story.  When that happens, the transcript on appeal may be somewhat lacking.  If so, you can use details from the affidavit to supplement the transcript and make a more compelling appeal brief.

While obtaining legally relevant details can be time consuming, it greatly increases the chance for a successful outcome and is well worth the trouble.

Continue reading

5 Comments

The Asylum Affidavit, Part 1: The Passive Tense Should Not Be Used

by Jason Dzubow

The heart of an asylum case is the applicant’s affidavit.  There, she tells her story and explains why she needs the protection of asylum.  Because affidavits are so important, I thought it might be helpful to do a short series about preparing a decent affidavit.

One of the most common problems in affidavits is the overuse of the passive voice.  Not to be all English teacher-y, but I’ve seen too many affidavits where I have no idea who is doing what to whom, and one reason for this confusion is the use of passive voice.  I imagine that if an affidavit is confusing for me as an attorney reviewing the case, it is quite possibly fatal to the applicant’s chances for success with an Asylum Officer or an Immigration Judge.

Of course, most asylum seekers are not native English speakers, and the overuse of passive voice stems as much from linguistic and cultural differences as it does from poor English grammar.  The problem is not confined to pro se applicants, however, but extends to cases prepared by notarios and attorneys as well—people who should know better.

Here is a made-up, but close-to-real-life example of an affidavit written in the passive voice:

On June 10, 2005, I was arrested at my house.  I was taken to the police detention center.  There, I was interrogated and beaten.

For her opposition to passive voice, Dorothy Parker was honored by the Postal Service.

If I have inherited this case (perhaps because the applicant was referred to Court by the Asylum Office), each of these sentences is more annoying than the last.  I want to know who arrested the applicant and whether anyone witnessed the arrest.  Also, who took the applicant to the detention center?  How did he get there? Who interrogated the applicant?  How many times was he interrogated?  Who beat him?  How many times was the applicant beaten?  What injuries did he sustain?  Did he say anything during the beating?  Did the interrogator(s) say anything?  Here is an (abbreviated) example of how the above statement might be re-written:

On June 10, 2005, three soldiers came to my house.  My father answered the door.  The leader of the group ordered my father to bring me to the door.  When I came to the door, the soldiers handcuffed me and drove me to the Central Police Station.  At the station, they put me in a holding cell with ten other prisoners.  After an hour, a guard brought me to a small office.  There were two soldiers standing in the room and a security agent sitting at a desk.  The agent ordered me to sit down.  He asked me why I participated in an opposition demonstration.  When I denied that I participated in any demonstration, he slapped me hard across my face.  My nose was bleeding.

You get the idea.  By reducing or eliminating passive voice from the passage, we have a much better idea about what happened.  I also added more detail, something that I will discuss in a future post.

The problem with passive voice is that it makes it more difficult to understand what is happening in the story.  If the fact finder cannot understand what is happening, he cannot compare the applicant’s testimony to her written affidavit.  Comparing the written and oral statements is one method for determining credibility.  Therefore, overuse of passive voice makes credibility determinations more difficult, and makes it more likely your client’s case will be denied.  Thus, in the words of Dorothy Parker, “The passive tense should not be used.”

Continue reading

2 Comments