On the Morality of Lying to Win Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

We are living in a time of big lies. President Trump is notorious for his mendacity, and many members of his Administration are no better. These lies come in different shapes and sizes, and relate to topics as diverse as climate change, election meddling, hurricane forecasts, international trade, and Joe Biden. But the biggest and most oft-repeated lies seem to involve immigrants: Asylum seekers are criminals, separating children from parents at the border was Obama’s fault, the asylum system is a scam, non-citizens are voting in our elections, illegal immigrants get free healthcare and welfare benefits, Democrats support open borders, the Diversity Visa Lottery lets foreign governments choose who gets a green card, Muslim refugees were admitted into the U.S. while Christian refugees were refused, immigrants can sponsor all sorts of distant relatives through “chain migration,” Central American countries are safe, etc., etc.

The question I want to ask today is this: If the government itself is lying about asylum seekers, why shouldn’t asylum seekers lie if it helps them win their cases?

The Asyl-Immanuel Kant approve a case where the applicant has Ben Constant-ly lying.

My interest here is not in practicality–it is clearly a bad idea to lie because you might get caught. Our government has a lot of information about asylum seekers and can use that information to test credibility. Asylum Officers, USCIS Officers, DHS attorneys, and Immigration Judges are good at examining witnesses and ferreting out falsehoods. Even if you get away with lying on an asylum application, the lie could come back to haunt you in the future (when you apply for residency or citizenship, or if you want to sponsor a family member). So there are good, practical reasons to tell the truth: You could lose your case, you could be blocked from any immigration benefits for life, you could end up in jail. And if you do get away with it, you can never really rest easy, and for as long as you are here, you will have to live with the possibility that your lie might be exposed and you could lose the life you’ve built in the United States. So in practice, lying is a bad idea. Here, though, I am interested in the morality of lying; not the practicality. Is it morally wrong to lie if that lie helps you to remain in the United States?

At one time, it would have been easy to answer that question in the affirmative. While President Obama’s policies were not always friendly to immigrants–he was called the “Deporter in Chief” by some immigration advocates–his Administration never engaged in the type of systematic dishonesty that we see from President Trump and his team. Despite all the problems during President Obama’s term (and there were many problems), at least it felt as though asylum applicants could generally have their cases adjudicated in an environment that was free from overt political interference. Given that people could get a fair shake, the moral justification for lying was a more difficult case to make.

In those distant days of the Obama Presidency, it was common to hear asylum seekers express great faith in our system of justice. That was one reason they came here in the first place. Their faith in our system made them more likely to tell the truth. Ironically, the constant barrage of lies from President Trump and his Administration is eroding faith in our system, which creates an increased incentive for individuals to falsify their own asylum stories. When the asylum system is discredited and illegitimate, the moral case for telling the truth is weakened.

Of course this outlook assumes a sort-of quid pro quo: If you (Trump) lie about me (asylum seeker), I can lie to you. This is an ends-justify-the-means approach that has never appealed to my sense of justice, and I am frankly uncomfortable with lying from a moral perspective simply because I believe lying is wrong–regardless of the end goal. But this is a type of morality that is easily deconstructed under various modern theories of legal justice. For example, when my law partner asks me, as he often does, “Do these pants make me look fat?” I always say no, even though those pants do make him look fat. I am lying for the sake of maintaining harmony in the office. Ends justifying means. So perhaps I should be less skittish about the moral implications of lying in other realms.

Indeed, support for the morality of lying for the “greater good” can be found in an old philosophical conundrum, presented by Benjamin Constant to Immanuel Kant in 1797. Kant basically believed that lying was always wrong, and so Constant challenged him with a scenario where a murderer is searching for his victim. The murderer arrives at the house of the victim’s friend and asks the friend where the victim is hiding. Does the friend have a duty to speak truthfully to the murderer? Constant argues that he does not–

The concept of duty is inseparable from the concept of right. A duty is that on the part of one being which corresponds to the rights of another. Where there are no rights, there are no duties. To tell the truth is therefore a duty, but only to one who has a right to the truth. But no one has a right to a truth that will harm others.

And so where the government is deliberately harming asylum seekers by lying about them in order to send them away, how can we say that asylum seekers have a duty to tell the truth to that same government?

For me, this is a difficult and uncomfortable question. But despite it all–the unfair laws (which long pre-date this Administration), the torrent of false claims about asylum seekers, the assault on due process–I still think lying is morally wrong in an asylum case. Here’s why: First, for me, the idea of asylum is somehow sacred. Our country is offering protection to strangers who need our help. We ask for nothing in return. In this respect, and despite a realpolitik element, asylum represents our highest ideals. And these are not just American ideals. The idea of welcoming the stranger is mentioned again and again in the Bible. Because I view asylum this way, the idea of lying to win one’s case feels like the violation of a sacred trust or covenant, and I see that as morally wrong.

Also, lying to win asylum further erodes the system and makes it harder for other asylum seekers to receive the protection they need. It is bad enough that the Trump Administration is systematically trying to dismantle our asylum system. When asylum seekers lie, they unwittingly aid in this effort and amplify it, and I believe that this is morally wrong.

Finally, I do not believe that two wrongs make a right. Just because the Administration is debasing itself by lying to harm asylum seekers, I do not think asylum seekers should do the same. I do not think it is moral to lower one’s own standards simply because another person is acting immorally, or even when we are operating in a system that is moving towards moral bankruptcy.

Having said all this, I recognize that I am far less affected by “the system” than the people seeking asylum. I have less to gain and less to lose. Each of us–asylum applicants, attorneys, decision-makers–has to make our own decision based on our own moral imperatives and our own needs. The President and his Administration have made their choice. They are lying to further their agenda. My hope is that asylum seekers and the asylum system can survive their lies while keeping our own morality intact.

Continue reading

119 Comments

Arrested and Charged with Lying in an Asylum Case

by Jason Dzubow

Last month, my client was arrested by the FBI and charged with visa fraud, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. He stands accused of lying on his I-589 asylum application and at his asylum interview. The client was held for a day or two and then released with instructions to appear in federal court.

If rich white guys can (theoretically) get into trouble for lying, you can too. So tell the truth!

My client’s case is both a cautionary tale and a sign of the times, so I wanted to discuss it here. But I am somewhat limited in what I can say, given that he has an active criminal case (not to mention a pending asylum case).

The charging documents in the criminal case allege that my client traveled from his home country, Country A, to a third country, Country B, and registered with the United Nations using a UNHCR Refugee Resettlement Form (“RRF”) in 2010. The RRF allegedly includes a photo of my client and contact information for him in Country B. The United Nations tried several times to reach the client in 2014 and 2015, but when he could not be reached, the UN closed his refugee resettlement case.

The documents also allege that my client applied for a non-immigrant visa to the United States, and then came to this country in 2013. After arriving in the U.S., my client applied for asylum using form I-589.

The asylum form, Part C, Question 2.B., asks whether “you, your spouse, your children, your parents, or your siblings ever applied for or received any lawful status in any country other than the one from which you are now claiming asylum?” If the answer is “yes,” the applicant must provide “the name of each country and the length of stay, the person’s status while there, the reason for leaving, whether or not the person is entitled to return for lawful residence purposes, and whether the person applied for refugee status or for asylum while there, and if not, why he or she did not do so.” According to the charging document, my client did not inform USCIS that he applied for refugee status while in Country B. The FBI charges that he deliberately omitted this information in order to conceal his past travels or possible legal status in Country B.

The charging documents also refer to my client’s interview at the asylum office. According to the documents, the Asylum Officer asked whether my client had been in Country B, and he denied having ever been there.

Based on the information on the form and his testimony at the interview, the charging documents allege that my client lied under oath, and that his lies constitute visa fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a).

Whether or not the government has a strong case against my client, and my own opinion of his case (and his veracity) are not issues I can discuss here. Instead, I want to talk about two other points. First, what this charge means for asylum seekers in general, and second, whether my client’s criminal case represents a new trend from the Trump Administration or is simply business as usual.

First, what does it mean that an asylum seeker can be charged with a crime for allegedly lying on his application? In fact, this is nothing new. The signature page of the asylum form clearly indicates (in language that no one ever bothers to read) that lying on the form carries criminal and immigration consequences, including possible imprisonment of up to 25 years.

Frankly, I am not all that sympathetic to people who lie to obtain immigration status in the United States. Our asylum system was created to help people fleeing persecution. Asylum seekers who lie damage the integrity of that system and erode public confidence in the asylum process. Worst of all, they harm legitimate asylum applicants by causing their cases to move more slowly and by making asylum more difficult to win. Coming to a new country and requesting asylum comes with certain obligations, such as learning the rules of the new country and following those rules, and that is what asylum seekers must do.

On the other hand, I do understand why some people lie. Many asylum seekers come from countries where the government is little more than a criminal institution. They have no faith in government because their life experience teaches them otherwise. To survive in such places, people must regularly lie to their governments or pay bribes to get things done. It’s not surprising that when such people reach the U.S., they have little compunction about lying on their immigration forms.

Further, many people coming to the United States are at the mercy of the community members they know who are already here. If such people are honest, informed, and willing to help, asylum seekers will get good advice. But if the community members happen to be dishonest or ill-informed, or if they are trying to take advantage of their countrymen (as happens all too often), the asylum seekers may be convinced to lie, even when it is against their own best interests. In many cases, the “lies” are grounded in naivete rather than mendacity. They are more a product of bad luck than moral turpitude. But the rules is the rules, and people who do not follow the rules may have to face the consequences.

My second question is whether the criminal case against my client is a sign that the Trump Administration is ramping up prosecutions against asylum seekers?

One anecdote does not a trend make. And as usual, the best source of statistical information is TRAC Immigration. TRAC’s most recent report about prosecutions for immigration violations (current as of October 2017) reveals something of a mixed bag.

Prosecutions for all immigration violations are up 3.4% from 2016, and such prosecutions have been on an upward trajectory since about April 2017, but they are still significantly below the peak period of immigration prosecutions in 2012. The vast majority of these prosecutions relate to Re-entry of a Deported Alien (8 U.S.C. § 1326 – 1,551 cases filed in October 2017) and Bringing In and Harboring Certain Aliens (8 U.S.C. § 1324 – 295 cases filed in October 2017). A minority of prosecutions (54 cases) were filed under 8 U.S.C. § 1546 (the statute my client was charged under), and another dozen or so cases were filed based on other fraud-related charges (we do not know how many of these cases involved asylum seekers, and how many involved other types of immigration fraud).

For comparison’s sake, the most recent data shows that non-citizens are applying for asylum at the rate of about 12,000 per month (this only counts affirmative cases, not court cases), so only a very small percentage (about 0.6% at most–and probably much less) of asylum seekers are being criminally charged with fraud. Further, according to the TRAC data, the number of aliens charged under 8 U.S.C. § 1546 has actually declined over the past year.

So the short answer is probably that, while prosecutions for immigration fraud in general are on the increase, in absolute numbers, very few people are being charged, and there is (so far) no real evidence pointing to an increase in prosecutions for asylum fraud. Of course, the best way to ensure that you don’t defy the odds and end up in criminal court is to tell the truth.

Continue reading

185 Comments

New Rule Spells Potential Trouble for Asylees

by Jason Dzubow

There’s a new State Department rule in town about misrepresentation, and it could signal trouble for certain asylum seekers and others who enter the country on non-immigrant visas and then seek to remain here permanently or engage in other behavior inconsistent with their visas.

The State Department has a long tradition of blocking visas for people facing persecution (if you don’t believe me, Google “Breckinridge Long”).

To understand the problem, we first need to talk a bit about non-immigrant visas (“NIV”). To obtain an NIV, you have to promise to comply with the terms of that visa. One common NIV requirement is that you must intend to leave the U.S. at the end of your period of authorized stay (some NIVs are exempt from this requirement, most notably the H1b and the L, which are known as “dual intent” visas). Another common NIV requirement is that the visa-holder should not work in the U.S. without permission. If you breach these requirements, there are often—but not always—immigration consequences.

For example, up until the rule change, if an alien entered the U.S. on a B or F visa, or on the Visa Waiver Program, and then filed to “adjust status” (i.e., get a green card) within 30 days of arrival, the alien was presumed to have had an “immigration intent” at the time of entry, and thus USCIS would assume that she lied about her intention to leave the U.S. at the end of her authorized stay (in government-speak, this is called a misrepresentation). If she violated her status between 30 and 60 days after arrival, USCIS might still decide that she misrepresented her intentions when she got the visa (this was known as the 30/60 day rule). If she filed for the green card on day 61 or beyond, she would generally be safe. There are exceptions and caveats to all this, but you get the picture.

Enter the new rule, which appears in the State Department’s Field Adjudications Manual (at 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3)):

[If] an alien violates or engages in conduct inconsistent with his or her nonimmigrant status within 90 days of entry… you [the consular officer] may presume that the applicant’s representations about engaging in only status-compliant activity were willful misrepresentations of his or her intention in seeking a visa or entry.

This change specifically affects people applying for visas at U.S. consulates, but it seems likely that USCIS could adopt the rule as well, which would mean that people who come to the United States on certain NIVs and who engaged in “non-status-compliant activity” within 90 days of arrival will be presumed to have lied in order to obtain their visas. All this means that the 30/60 day rule is dead, at least so far as the State Department is concerned, and probably for USCIS as well.

This is all pretty boring and confusing, you say. What does it have to do with asylum seekers?

The issue is, if a person comes to the United States and applies for asylum within 90 days of arrival, he might be considered to have lied about his “immigration intent” in order to obtain a U.S. visa. In other words, requesting asylum (and thus asking to stay permanently in the United States) is not consistent with coming here on most NIVs, which require that you promise to leave the U.S. at the end of your authorized stay.

This problem is not just academic. I’ve recently heard from a colleague whose client came to the U.S., won asylum, and obtained a green card. But when the client applied for citizenship, USCIS accused him of a “misrepresentation” because he entered the country on an NIV and then sought to remain here permanently through asylum. This example comes amidst several cases—including one of my own—where USCIS seems to have pushed the boundaries of the law in order to deny citizenship to asylees. It also seems part of a larger pattern to “bury lawyers and their clients in requests for more and more documentation, and clarification on points that were already extremely clear in the initial filing.”

I should note that the above examples are not related to the new State Department rule (probably), though if USCIS implements a similar rule, it would potentially expose many more asylees (and other USCIS applicants) to the same fate.

It’s a little hard to understand what USCIS is trying to do here, or why they are doing it. For one things, there is a waiver available to refugees and asylees who commit fraud (the waiver forgives fraud and allows the person to remain in the United States). Also, when a person fears persecution in her country and qualifies for asylum, low-grade misrepresentations are routinely forgiven. So the likelihood that any asylee would ultimately be deported for having lied to get a visa is close to zero. In other words, USCIS can delay the process, and cause these asylees a lot of stress and expense, but in the end, they will remain here and most likely become U.S. citizens (eventually).

Perhaps this is the Trump Administration’s implementation of “extreme vetting.” If so, it’s more appearance than substance. It looks as if something is happening, but really, nothing is happening. Except of course that USCIS is mistreating people who have come to the United States and demonstrated that they have a well-founded fear of harm in their home countries. So—like a Stalinist show trial—such people will admit their “misrepresentations” (in many cases, for the second, third or fourth time), go through the hassle, stress, and expense of the waiver process, and then end up staying here just the same.

It’s too bad. USCIS can do a lot of good—for immigrants and for our national security. But unfortunately, their current path will not lead to improvements in either realm.

Continue reading

252 Comments

Implementing the Executive Orders: The DHS Memo

by Jason Dzubow

Earlier this week, DHS Secretary John Kelly issued a memorandum describing how DHS plans to implement President Trump’s policies concerning “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.” Here, I want to discuss how this memo could affect the asylum system.

First, for people granted asylum or who have obtained their residency (green card) or citizenship through asylum, the memo has essentially no effect. The only possible exception is that DHS plans to expand the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (affectionately referred to as the FDNS), and if DHS somehow discovers that a previously-granted case was, in fact, fraudulent, it could reopen that person’s case. Also, given the Trump Administration’s stepped-up enforcement, it is a good idea to carry proof of lawful status with you at all times, just in case you are stopped by the authorities (and in many cases, non-citizens are actually required by law to carry proof of immigration status).

Shade-enfreude (defined): The pleasure one gets knowing that someone with a darker skin tone is in pain.

For people with asylum cases currently pending–before the Asylum Office or the Immigration Court–the memo also has little effect. As I have written here before, a person with a pending asylum case cannot be deported from the United States without due process of law, meaning a hearing before an Immigration Judge and an appeal. So while the atmosphere for asylum seekers has become more toxic, the substantive law and procedure remains largely the same. As mentioned above, you should carry proof of your pending status (work permit, asylum receipt, court order) with you at all times.

One possible issue for people currently in the system is more delay. The DHS memo directs USCIS “to increase the number of asylum officers and FDNS officers assigned to detention facilities located at or near the border with Mexico to properly and efficiently adjudicate credible fear and reasonable fear claims and to counter asylum-related fraud.” The memo also envisions a “joint plan with the Department of Justice to surge the deployment of immigration judges and asylum officers to interview and adjudicate claims asserted by recent border entrants.” Assigning more Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges to the border (either by physically sending them there or by having them adjudicate cases remotely), obviously means that those adjudicators will not be available to work on the hundreds of thousands of cases in the backlog, and that could mean more delay. In addition, the memo calls for hiring thousands more immigration officers, and for stepped up enforcement and detention. If all that happens, many more people will be channeled into the Immigration Court system, and unless more judges (lots more judges) are hired, the influx of people into the system will cause further delay. On the other hand, the memo also calls for expanded use of “expedited removal,” which may end up removing certain cases from the system and cause the remaining cases to move more quickly. How all this plays out, only time will tell.

Another possible issue for people with pending asylum cases is the increased focus on fraud. The Immigration and Nationality Act and the REAL ID Act, along with the Code of Federal Regulations, and case law set forth the standards for evaluating credibility. The DHS memo calls for “enhancing” asylum referrals and credible fear determinations. While this would not directly impact people with pending asylum cases (as asylum referrals and credible fear determinations occur prior to a case being sent to Immigration Court or to the Asylum Office), it might signal DHS’s intention to subject asylum cases to greater scrutiny. Also, of course, expansion of the FDNS points towards a greater focus on asylum fraud, which could impact pending cases (personally, I think DHS should be doing more to combat asylum fraud, as long as they are doing so effectively, as I discuss here).

For people inside the United States who plan to seek asylum here, but have not yet filed, the memo may affect you. If you entered lawfully with a visa, you should be able to apply for asylum as before. Indeed, even if you entered unlawfully, you should be able to seek asylum as before. However, if you entered the U.S. without inspection or based on some type of fraud (how broadly “fraud” will be interpreted is not yet known), and you are detained by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) before you file for asylum, you could be subject to “expedited removal.” People crossing the border illegally who get caught or who surrender to ICE agents may also be subject to expedited removal.

People facing expedited removal are permitted by law to request asylum. If they indicate a fear of harm in their country, the law requires that an Asylum Officer perform a “credible fear interview” where the person must demonstrate a “significant possibility” that they could establish eligibility for asylum. If they meet this standard, their case will be referred to an Immigration Judge for an asylum hearing. If they do not demonstrate a “significant possibility” of winning asylum, they can be removed immediately from the United States (subject to limited review by an Immigration Judge). The DHS memo indicates that the government will greatly expand the use of expedited removal, though the details of the plan have not yet been released.

As you might imagine, there are some major problems with the expedited removal process. For one, ICE officers often fail to inform aliens of their right to seek asylum (or ignore their requests to seek asylum). If this happens, people with a legitimate asylum claim may be removed from the United States before they have an opportunity to claim asylum or have a credible fear interview. The expedited removal process is quite fast and there is little chance to retain counsel and defend yourself, and no opportunity to see an Immigration Judge. In addition, the DHS memo seeks to expand the use of expedited removal and raise the evidentiary bar for credible fear interviews. All this will make it more difficult for asylum seekers who are subject to expedited removal from asserting their claims. I plan to write another post on this topic, but I will first wait for DHS to clarify its position on expedited removal (in the mean time, if you want to learn more, check out this excellent practice advisory by the American Immigration Council).

Per its campaign promises, the Trump Administration is ramping up immigration enforcement efforts. People who have won asylum, or who have already filed, are largely insulated from those efforts, and without Congressional action, it is likely to remain that way. But if you are in the United States and you plan to file for asylum, you should do so soon (at least before your lawful status expires). Remaining here lawfully is the best way to protect yourself from the Administration’s enforcement efforts.

Continue reading

219 Comments

When Lawyers Lie

by Jason Dzubow

The case of Detroit-area immigration lawyer David Wenger has been in the news lately. Mr. Wenger was recently sentenced to 18 months in prison for counseling his client to lie to the Immigration Court.

Mr. Wenger’s client is a 45-year-old Albanian citizen who has lived in the U.S. since he was six months old. The client’s family, including his daughter, live in the United States as well. Apparently, the client landed in removal proceedings due to a 2013 controlled-substance conviction, but the source of Mr. Wenger’s troubles stem from the client’s decades-old conviction for criminal sexual misconduct.

It seems that Mr. Wenger feared that if the Immigration Judge became aware of the sexual misconduct conviction, the client would have been deported. Having witnessed the tragedy of deportation many times, and particularly the pain it causes to the children of the deported, Mr. Wenger took matters into his own hands and tried to cover up the old conviction. It didn’t work.

Now, Mr. Wenger is going to jail and the client–while still in the United States–faces an uncertain future.

Mr. Wenger’s tale has caused some buzz among my fellow immigration lawyers. Mostly, it is described as “sad,” and certainly there is an undercurrent of sympathy for a man whose advocacy crossed a line that we, as lawyers, are trained to approach. I’ve known criminal defense lawyers, for example, who say that if you don’t go to jail for contempt once in a while, you’re not doing your job. And certainly there is an element of truth to this: When you are advocating for an individual against The Man, you have to use all the tools at your disposal and push the limits of the law to protect your client. That is our job–and our duty–as lawyers. But such zealous advocacy has inherent risks, as Mr. Wenger’s story reminds us.

So I suppose I understand Mr. Wenger’s motivation to lie. But I do not understand how he thought he might get away with it in this particular case. The U.S. government keeps records of criminal convictions, and the DHS attorney in the case would likely have known about the old conviction. So even if you are not morally opposed to lying, I don’t see the point of lying about something that the government knows already.

The temptations faced by Mr. Wenger are amplified in my practice area–asylum–where the U.S. government rarely has independent evidence about the problems faced by asylum seekers overseas, and significant portions of most such cases depend on the client’s own testimony. I’ve encountered this myself a few times when clients have asked me to help them lie (“Would my case be stronger if I said X?”). How to handle such a request?

The easy answer, I suppose, is to tell the client to take a hike. That is not my approach. I am sympathetic to people fleeing persecution who do not understand the asylum system, and who think that lying is the only way to find safety (and who often come from places where lying to the government is necessary for survival). In many cases, such people need to be educated about the U.S. asylum system. When a client asks me to lie, I explain that as an attorney, I cannot misrepresent the truth. I also explain why lying will likely not help achieve the client’s goal, and how we can present the actual case in a way that will succeed. Hopefully this is enough to convince the client to tell the truth.

For individual clients, of course, this type of honesty sometimes has its drawbacks: Cases may be lost, people may be deported–possibly to their deaths, and families will be separated. Some lawyers find this price too high. If you believe your client will be deported to his death and you can save him by lying, perhaps the lie is justified. Mr. Wegner, no doubt, felt that he was doing the right thing for his Albanian client (though a review of Mr. Wegner’s disciplinary record reveals that he has not always served the best interests of his clients). And there are certainly attorneys who believe that the ends justify the means. But I am not one of them.

When all is said and done, I will not lie for a client. I don’t think it is effective, and even if we get away with it in one case, I fear that it would hurt my credibility as a lawyer–and thus my ability to be an effective advocate–in all my other cases. I also feel that it damages the system, which hurts honest applicants.

In the final analysis, even if we ignore his other disciplinary issues, it is difficult for me to feel too sorry for Mr. Wegner. While a lawyer’s zealous representation of his client is admirable, the willingness to cheat corrodes our immigration system and ultimately harms the very people that lawyers like Mr. Wegner purport to help. For me, even the argument that lying is a necessary form of civil disobedience in an unjust system falls flat. Civil disobedience is about sitting at the lunch counter; not stealing the food.

Despite all the imperfections of the immigration system, our primary job as lawyers is to work within that system to assist our clients. We also have a role to play in criticizing and improving the system. But when lawyers lie, we fail as both advocates and as reformers.

Continue reading

53 Comments

Asylum and the DV Lottery (and DV Lottery Scams)

by Jason Dzubow

It’s Autumn, which means that it’s time again for the Diversity Visa Lottery. The Lottery was created by Congress to increase immigration from countries that have traditionally sent us few immigrants. Every year, 50,000 people “win” the lottery and are then (probably) able to immigrate to the U.S.

The only problem with winning the DV Lottery is that it's hard to fit the green card in your wallet.
The only problem with winning the DV Lottery is that it’s hard to fit the green card in your wallet.

Given the current state of affairs in the asylum world (delay, delay, delay), some people with asylum cases pending are wondering whether they can use the Lottery as an alternative to asylum. The answer: It depends.

First, not all countries are eligible for the Lottery. Countries that have sent us large numbers of immigrants in the past are not included in the Lottery. If you are from one of the following countries, you are not eligible for the DV Lottery:

Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam.

For China, please note that persons born in Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR, and Taiwan are eligible.

Even if you were born in one of the above-listed countries, you might be eligible for the Lottery if your spouse’s country does not appear on the list, if your parents were not born in one of the countries on the list, or if your parents were not lawful residents of a listed country at the time you were born. You can lean more about these somewhat annoying requirements here.

Besides country-of-origin restrictions, the other requirement for eligibility is that applicants must have a high-school degree or the equivalent, or have “two years of work experience within the past five years in an occupation requiring at least two years of training or experience to perform.”

If you meet these two requirements, you can apply for the DV Lottery. This is free and actually pretty easy. Video instructions are here and you can apply here. You must apply before November 3, 2015. Winners are selected starting in May 2016.

There are also a number (probably a large number) of websites that will “help” you apply for the Lottery, for a fee. In the best case, this is a waste of money (it is just as easy to apply yourself). In the worst case, it is a complete fraud. You can learn more about these fraudsters and report scams to the U.S. government here.

Unlike most applications, I recommend that people do not use a lawyer for the Lottery and do not use a service. It is best to do it yourself.

However, if you win the Lottery, it is very wise to hire a lawyer to guide you through the green card process. Winning the Lottery does not guarantee that you will get a green card, and whether you can successfully take advantage of winning the Lottery depends on many factors and can be complicated–especially for people with asylum cases pending.

So let’s say you have an asylum case pending, should  you try the Lottery? The easy answer here is “yes,” there is no harm in trying the Lottery. If you happen to win, then things get complicated (the odds of winning are hard to come by, but appear to be less than 1%).

If you win the Lottery while your asylum cased is pending, you can potentially obtain your lawful permanent residency (your green card) and close out your asylum case. Your spouse and minor children can also get their green cards as your dependents. The problem is that not all asylum applicants will be eligible to “adjust status” and become residents of the United States, and this is where it gets tricky.

A DV Lottery winner who filed for asylum while she was still “in status,” meaning she was lawfully present in the U.S. at the time of filing, and who is still lawfully present here, can “adjust status.” “Adjusting status” means changing from a non-immigrant status to a lawful permanent resident without leaving the U.S.

Most asylum applicants will not be “in status” for long enough to take advantage of the Lottery. For example, if you came here on a B visa and filed for asylum, the B visa was probably valid for only six months, which means that you will be out of status after the six month period ends. The fact that you filed for asylum does not change the expiration date of your visa (the expiration date of your stay is not written on the visa itself; you can look it up on-line here). Since the Lottery process takes much more than six months, you will be out of status by the time your green card is available, which means you cannot “adjust status.” Instead, you would have to leave the United States and get the green card overseas.

Certain asylum applicants–those with long term visas, like F-1 students or H1B workers, who do not violate the conditions of their visas–might be able to remain in status long enough to adjust status and become lawful permanent residents without leaving the United States.

So if you are an asylum seeker who is out of status, can you leave the U.S. and collect your residency overseas? Maybe.

The key here is something called “unlawful presence.” Once your lawful stay in the U.S. expires, each day here is considered one day of unlawful presence. If you accrue more than 180 days of unlawful presence and then leave the U.S., you are barred from returning here for three years. If you accrue one year or more of unlawful presence and you leave, you cannot return for 10 years. This is known as the 3/10 year bar. A person who has an asylum case pending does not accrue unlawful presence. So for example, if you came on a B visa that was valid for six months, you overstayed your visa, and you filed for asylum four months after the visa expired (10 months after you arrived in the United States), you will have four months of unlawful presence. Once you file for asylum, you stop accruing unlawful presence, so even if your case takes two more years, you will still only have four months of unlawful presence, and you will not be subject to the 3/10 year bar if you leave (though you might be subject to other bars).

Assuming you are not subject to the 3/10 year bar, it may be possible to leave the U.S. and obtain your residency overseas based on the DV Lottery. However, for asylum seekers, this might mean returning to the country of feared persecution, which can be dangerous and might also raise suspicion at the U.S. consulate that your asylum case was not legitimate (if you can return to your country for the Lottery, maybe you never really feared persecution there). For asylum seekers (and others), it may be possible to leave the U.S. and pick up the green card in a third country, which would be the safer option.

If you are an asylum seeker who is subject to the 3/10 year bar and you leave to collect your residency, you will then need special permission to return (this is called a waiver). Such permission will be difficult–if not impossible–to obtain for most asylum seekers, and so people subject to the bar will most likely be unable to obtain their residency based on the DV Lottery.

Finally, asylum seekers who entered the United States without inspection are ineligible to adjust status and thus cannot take advantage of the DV Lottery (there may be a very narrow exception to this rule for people who meet certain conditions, including having been present in the U.S. since December 2000).

The bottom line here is that if you win the Lottery, you need to consult with a competent attorney. For asylum seekers, the ability to adjust status–or possibly leave the U.S. and return with residency–is crucial. It is very difficult to navigate these waters without the advice of someone who knows what he is doing. It makes sense to apply for the Lottery on your own, but if you win, it’s time to hire a lawyer.

Continue reading

315 Comments

The BIA’s Tepid Response to Asylum Fraud

by Jason Dzubow

A recent Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision upheld an Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding where the respondent’s affidavit was “substantially similar, and in some regards identical, to an asylum application previously filed by respondent’s brother in a different proceeding.” Matter of R-K-K-, 26 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 2015).

The BIA should think of more creative ways to prevent cheating.
The BIA should think of more creative ways to prevent cheating.

In this case, the first brother came to the U.S., filed for asylum, and was granted. In his asylum application, brother # 1 stated that he was arrested two times–in 2004 and 2006–and he described what happened during those arrests. Later, the second brother (respondent or R-K-K-) came to America and filed for asylum. He also claimed to have been arrested two times–in April and May 2010. R-K-K- described his arrests in terms remarkably similar to his brother’s case, including the time of day when he was arrested, the abuse endured, conversations with abusers, and psychological harm. R-K-K- even included in his affidavit the same spelling and grammar mistakes as his brother.

After informing R-K-K- of the problem, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) gave him time to gather evidence and explain himself. R-K-K- claimed that the similarities were the result of the brothers’ “common backgrounds and experience,” and because they were assisted by the same transcriber. The IJ asked R-K-K- to locate the transcriber, but R-K-K- was unable to do so.

The IJ did not accept R-K-K-‘s explanation. He found R-K-K- not credible and denied the application for asylum. R-K-K- appealed.

The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision and issued a published decision in order to set forth a “procedural framework under which an Immigration Judge should address… inter-proceeding similarities.” The short answer here is that (1) the IJ must give the respondent notice that her case has been found substantially similar to another case; (2) allow her an opportunity to explain what happened; and (3) determine the respondent’s credibility based on the totality of the circumstances. The shorter answer is, Who cares?

I do not know how often “inter-proceeding similarities” are an issue, but I imagine it happens now and again. When I was a Judicial Law Clerk at the end of the last century, I worked on a Somali case that was essentially identical to an unrelated person’s case. The affidavits and events were word-for-word the same. Only a few names had been changed to personalize the story a bit. So I suppose there is nothing wrong with establishing a framework for analyzing the problem.

But to me, it seems that the Board in R-K-K- is missing the larger issue. Yes, it appears that R-K-K- committed a fraud, and yes, under the applicable legal standard, he should probably be deported. And fine, it’s nice to have a framework to assess credibility when this issue comes up. But what about the missing “transcriber”? Where is the person who prepared this fraudulent case? He is nowhere to be found. And the BIA does not seem to care.

Frankly, the BIA’s decision here makes me angry. Everyone in this business knows that asylum fraud is a problem. We also know that there are (hopefully) a small number of attorneys and notarios (or transcribers) who are responsible for much of this fraud. These people damage the asylum system and make life more difficult for legitimate asylum seekers.

Some–perhaps most–of the fraudsters’ clients are active participants in the fraud. But at least in my experience cleaning up their messes, many of these “clients” are naïve victims of unscrupulous attorneys who find it all too easy to manipulate frightened people who do not speak English, who are predisposed to mistrust authority (because they were harmed by the authorities in the home country), who do not understand “the system,” and who have no support network in the United States.

So is R-K-K- a victim or a villain? We don’t know, and given the BIA’s “framework” for analyzing similar cases, I guess we never will.

How could this decision have been better? It seems a crime was committed here, so why not involve law enforcement? When a possible fraud has been detected, the Board could require the IJ to inform the applicant about the possible fraud, advise him that if he cannot overcome the finding of fraud, he faces criminal and immigration penalties, and give him an opportunity to switch attorneys and/or work with law enforcement to expose and prosecute the guilty party. He should also be made aware of the benefits of cooperation. The alien can refuse to go along, of course, in which case he will face the consequences. But if he does cooperate, he should be rewarded, particularly if it turns out that he was more of a victim than a co-conspirator.

There is precedent for this type of coercion in immigration proceedings. In Matter of Lozada, the BIA basically held that if an alien has been denied relief due to the ineffective assistance of her attorney, she can reopen her case, but to do so, she generally must file a bar complaint against the ineffective attorney. This requirement forces attorneys to police their own by possibly having their colleagues disbarred. I don’t like it, but I’ll file a complaint when it’s justified. And–so the reasoning goes–if the offending attorney is barred from practice, his future clients/victims will be protected.

The problem addressed by R-K-K- is worse than the one described in Lozada. In Lozada, we are talking about ineffective assistance of counsel–this ranges from a benign screw-up (which can–and does–happen even to the best attorneys) to dereliction of duty. In R-K-K-, on the other hand, the Board is addressing outright fraud: The attorney or notario (or applicant) has appropriated someone else’s case as her own in the hope of outwitting the fact-finder. This is malicious and dangerous behavior that requires punishment. The regime created by R-K-K- allows the little fish to fry and the big fish to keep swimming. It addresses a symptom of the fraud without reaching the source. I hope that the BIA will one day revisit this issue and that it will take a stronger stance against asylum fraud.

Continue reading

77 Comments

Palestinian Activist Convicted of Immigration Fraud; Supporters Cry Foul

by Jason Dzubow

Earlier this week, Rasmea Odeh, the associate director of the Arab American Action Network in Chicago, was convicted of one count of Unlawful Procurement of Naturalization. She faces up to 10 years in prison, a fine, and possible deportation from the United States.

Convincing Ms. Odeh's supporters proved easier than convincing a jury.
Convincing Ms. Odeh’s supporters proved easier than convincing a jury.

Ms. Odeh is a Palestinian who was convicted in Israel in 1970 for involvement in two bombings, one of which killed two university students in a supermarket. She was sentenced to life in prison, but she was freed in 1979 as part of a prisoner exchange between Israel and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Ms. Odeh maintains that she is innocent of the crime, and that she was coerced into confessing under torture by the Israeli authorities.

In the mid-1990s, she immigrated from Jordan to the United States, and in 2004, she became a U.S. citizen. By all accounts, she did well in her adopted country:

Rasmea Odeh has been with the Arab American Action Network (AAAN) since 2004 and is the Associate Director and Community Adult Women Organizer…. She has worked as a teacher and then a lawyer after she completed her law degree. She gained valuable community experience through her work and service in various associations including women’s and workers’ unions, family and domestic violence groups, human right centers and the Red Cross. She created a successful community writing group at the AAAN to encourage women to tell their colorful stories and experiences while living in the United States in a creative and exciting way.

Ms. Odeh’s current troubles stem from her failure to report her conviction and sentence on her immigration and naturalization forms. Those forms ask such questions as “Have you ever been arrested, cited, or detained by any law enforcement officer… for any reason?” and “Have you ever been charged with committing, attempting to commit, or assisting in committing a crime or offense?” (emphasis in original). In response to these questions, Ms. Odeh answered “no.”

In a sense, this is an open-and-shut case. Whether or not Ms. Odeh is guilty of the underlying crime (the bombing), she certainly provided false information on the immigration forms. But of course, nothing connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can ever be simple, and Ms. Odeh’s case is no exception.

The first complicating factor is Ms. Odeh’s alleged torture by Israel. This became relevant because the defense hoped to prove that Ms. Odeh did not “knowingly” lie on the immigration forms; rather, her “post-traumatic stress disorder” somehow caused her to answer the questions incorrectly. The judge disallowed this defense in a pre-trial order, and it will no doubt be one of the claims raised on appeal. To me, the PTSD defense is simply not believable. Many of my clients are torture victims and possibly suffer from PTSD, but I’ve never seen a case where the client isn’t able to answer a yes-or-no question about whether she was arrested. Maybe she does not want to talk about the arrest, but she knows it happened and can complete the form properly. Even if the judge had allowed this defense, I doubt that the jury would have accepted it.

Deprived of her PTSD defense, Ms. Odeh argued that she misunderstood the questions related to her criminal convictions. She said that she thought the questions were about her time in the U.S., and that she had nothing to hide and did not need to lie. She apparently testified about her alleged torture at the United Nations in 1979, and as her lead attorney said, “It was well known that she was convicted, and traded [in a prisoner exchange]. The U.S. Embassy knew it, the State Department knew it, and Immigration should have known it.” Neither of these points is very convincing. First, Ms. Odeh clearly had a very good reason to lie–if the U.S. government knew about her conviction on terrorism charges, she would likely have been denied a visa and citizenship. Second, her attorney’s claim that she did not have to answer the questions truthfully since the U.S. government was already aware of her conviction is simply bizarre (as if some USCIS bureaucrat in 2004 would magically be aware of Ms. Odeh’s testimony before the UN in 1979).

The most (and to me, only) convincing argument made by Ms. Odeh is that her prosecution stems from an improper government investigation that targeted Palestinian activists and others who were exercising their First Amendment rights. Ms. Odeh filed an unsuccessful motion to dismiss relying on this theory. The investigation in question was brought against 23 anti-war and Palestinian activists, and after 3+ years, has not resulted in any indictments. During the course of the investigation, the government of Israel turned over documents to the United States. It is these documents that purportedly led to the discovery of Ms. Odeh’s imprisonment (and hence the discovery that she lied on her immigration forms). The failure of the underlying investigation to reach any conclusion suggests that it might have been improper and, if so, perhaps the discovery related to Ms. Odeh was unlawful (fruit of the poison tree and all that). I suppose we will see what comes of this argument on appeal. But of course, even if Ms. Odeh is correct about the improper investigation, and even if she ultimately wins with this issue on appeal, that does not change the fact that she lied on her forms.

Finally, it is interesting to see how people’s views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict affect their views of Ms. Odeh’s case. To her supporters, this case is about Israeli torture of Palestinians. They seem to accept Ms. Odeh’s explanation that she is innocent, that she was tortured into confessing, that any mistakes on the form were either a misunderstanding or a result of her PTSD, and that the whole case is an effort by the U.S. government to undermine the Palestinian cause.

While I largely sympathize with the Palestinian side, I find Ms. Odeh’s explanations hard to accept. To me—and apparently to the jury—the case is much simpler than all that. The question is, Did Ms. Odeh knowingly lie on her immigration and naturalization forms? The jury found that she did. Despite all the craziness surrounding her case, and whether she is a victim or a villain, the simplest and most likely explanation here is that Ms. Odeh lied about her imprisonment in order to obtain an immigration benefit from the United States. If so, she received the conviction she deserved.

Continue reading

6 Comments

Immigration Reform and Asylum Fraud

by Jason Dzubow

As lawmakers consider changes to the asylum system, one area of concern is asylum fraud.

If it takes one to know one, Congress should be great at eliminating fraud.
If it takes one to know one, Congress should be great at eliminating fraud.

The Senate Bill, in its current form, would eliminate the one-year asylum filing deadline. This deadline was created in an effort to stop asylum fraud. In reality (and as I discuss here), the one-year deadline does little to stop fraud, but often harms legitimate refugees. What, then, could the Senate do to help reduce asylum fraud? Below are a few suggestions:

  • Investigate and Prosecute Attorneys and Notarios Suspected of Facilitating Fraud – Based on my experience and my conversations with Asylum Officers and DHS attorneys, I believe that a small number of attorneys and notaries are responsible for a large percentage of fraud. Asylum Officers, DHS Attorneys, and Immigration Judges will often harbor suspicions about which attorneys and notaries are producing fraudulent asylum cases. The Government could (1) create a national database of suspected fraudsters; (2) question the clients of suspected fraudsters closely, in order to determine what role the attorney or notario played in preparing the case. Such information could be entered into the database to help build a case against the suspect; (3) if there is sufficient evidence against a particular fraudster, the person could be investigated; (4) attorneys and notarios should be prosecuted for fraud, and—where prosecution is not possible—a bar complaint should be filed against suspected attorneys; and (5) where possible, notarios should be prosecuted for practicing law without a license.
  • Create a Mandatory Immigration Bar – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) is in the process of creating an electronic registry for attorneys who practice before the Immigration Courts. This registry could be expanded into a mandatory immigration bar. Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers who suspect an attorney’s involvement in fraud could submit a complaint to the bar for investigation. Also, aliens who have been victimized by an attorney could make a complaint to the bar association. 
  • Create a Mandatory Notario Registry – The asylum form, Form I-589, requires that the applicant give the name and contact information for whoever helped the applicant prepare the form. The I-589 form could request additional information about the preparer: (1) whether she charges a fee; (2) what her relationship is to the applicant (hired professional, friend, family member); (3) whether she is an attorney; (4) if she is not an attorney, whether she has informed the applicant that she is not an attorney; and (5) a copy of her photo ID. DOJ and DHS could require all hired preparers to register, and could track the cases they submit in a notario data base. Notarios who engage in bad behavior could then be punished and/or prevented from providing services to asylum applicants.

It seems to me that the above approaches would do more to reduce fraud than the one-year asylum filing deadline. In my experience, the deadline does nothing to stop fraudulent cases.  Instead, it tends to block legitimate asylum seekers who are ignorant of the law, or who don’t file because they hope the situation back home will improve. Other people miss the deadline because they have been traumatized in their country and they do not want to re-live their difficult experiences by having to prepare an asylum case.  One group that has been particularly hard hit by the one-year deadline is LGBT asylum seekers. Often, such people are not “out” when they come to the United States, and they need time before they are able to discuss their sexual orientation publicly. Another group disproportionately affected by the deadline is women, who often fail to file due to shame or lack of knowledge about the asylum system.

Requiring notarios and attorneys to register, and keeping track of them, is more work than simply imposing an arbitrary deadline, but it would have the virtue of actually doing something to solve the problem.

Continue reading

5 Comments

When Clients Lie

by Jason Dzubow

I once represented a Russian woman who paid a notario (or whatever you call the Russian equivalent of a notario) $10,000.00 to concoct a phony story about how the woman was a lesbian who faced persecution in her home country. The application was denied, in part because the notario failed to inform the asylum seeker about the contents of her application, and the woman was referred to Immigration Court.

Admit your mistakes and you may get asylum... or even a seat in Congress.
Admit your mistakes and you may get asylum… or even a seat in Congress.

By the time I got the case, the woman had married a United States citizen (a man) and was facing deportation. We had to decide how best to approach the case, given the client’s previous lies. What we did is the same approach I have used many times since, because it tends to work. We admitted that she lied, explained how the lie happened (basically, a naive young woman following the advice of a high-paid crook), accepted responsibility for what she did wrong, and apologized.

In the end, the client received her green card based on the marriage. My favorite part of the case was when I informed the Immigration Judge that I would have an expert at trial to testify concerning country conditions in Russia: The husband was African American, and if his wife was deported, he planned to follow her to Russia, where he would likely face problems with skinheads and other racists. The Judge, who was also black, told me, “I don’t need an expert to tell me that there is racism in Russia.” We skipped the expert and won the case.

This basic formula–admit the lie, take responsibility, and apologize–is one that has worked for my clients on numerous occasions.

Just last month, for example, we completed the case of an asylee who had been convicted of stealing money from his employer. The crime was an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act (because he was sentenced to more than one year in prison). The refuge waiver, under section 209(c) of the INA, is one of the rare waivers that allows an aggravated felon to adjust status from asylum or refugee to lawful permanent resident. It’s not an easy waiver to get, and really isn’t that common (which–I hope–means that asylees rarely commit aggravated felonies).

In that case we used the same formula.  The client took responsibility for his crime, apologized, and promised that he would not engage in such behavior again. We also submitted evidence of rehabilitation. The waiver was granted, the client was released from detention (after a good eight months in jail), and he received his green card.

This same strategy can be used for clients who lied to obtain a visa or who entered the country illegally. The fact finders want to hear that the alien accepts responsibility for what she did. And in asylum cases, there really is little to gain from covering up such lies, as people who falsely obtain a visa (or enter the U.S. illegally) in order to escape persecution are not ineligible for asylum.

The point of all this is not that the client can say the magic words and win permission to remain in the United States. Rather, the alien who accepts responsibility for what he did (and tries to turn his life around) is much more likely to receive relief than the alien who tries to cover it up or blame someone else.

Continue reading

6 Comments

Lawyers Gone Wild

by Jason Dzubow

The New York Times reports a major bust involving lawyers, paralegals, and even a church official who were allegedly helping Chinese nationals file fraudulent asylum cases.

The Times reports that 26 people, including six attorneys, were arrested in Chinatown and Flushing, Queens. They are accused of an elaborate scheme to help Chinese immigrants invent stories about persecution and dupe immigration officials into granting asylum. Some false stories describe persecution based on China’s one-child policy, including forced abortion. Others set forth claims based on religious persecution. Apparently, the asylum seekers aroused suspicion when Asylum Officers noticed that many of the stories were very similar.

Some people probably should not be allowed to practice law.
Some people probably should not be allowed to practice law.

In all, the conspiracy involves 10 law firms and as many as 1,900 asylum seekers. The conspiracy also allegedly involved at least one church official, Liying (pronounced “Lying”?) Lin. According to the Times, Ms. Lin, 29, trained asylum seekers in the basic tenets of Christianity. According to the indictment against her, Ms. Lin also helped her “clients” trick the immigration authorities and “trained asylum applicants on what questions about religious belief would be asked during an asylum interview and coached the clients on how to answer.”

This is not the first time that I’ve written about Lawyers and paralegals helping to create false cases, but it is the largest such bust that I’ve heard about.  One question is, how pervasive is this type of fraud? 

A professor of Asian-American studies and urban affairs at Hunter College in New York, Peter Kwong, told the Times that he believes most Chinese asylum cases in New York City were fraudulent. “This is an industry,” said Prof. Kwong, who has written widely on Chinese immigration. “Everybody knows about it, and these violations go on all the time.” While I would not be surprised if Prof. Kwong is correct, I would also not be surprised if he is over-estimating the number of fraudulent asylum claims. 

The reason for the difficulty is that there is no data on false asylum claims. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence about false claims, but this is really not reliable. For one thing, some people with real asylum claims are duped by unscrupulous lawyers and paralegals into making false applications. For instance, I was recently consulted in a case where a Russian paralegal and attorney created a false claim for the asylum seeker even though he had a perfectly legitimate reason for seeking asylum. I suspect they created the false case because that was easier than preparing the actual case. So while the man’s case was false, he had a real claim for asylum (he lost his case and spent many thousands of dollars in the process).

Another reason why I don’t trust the anecdotal evidence on fraud is because cases are sometimes fraudulent in non-material ways. What I mean is, sometimes people lie about things that do not affect their cases. For example, I worked on a case where the applicant did not mention her husband on her I-589 form (which she completed and filed before she had a lawyer). She felt that she did not need to list him, as they were separated. The DHS attorney brought this up when he argued that the applicant was not credible, so it might have impacted the case (in the end, the IJ found her credible). The marriage did not relate to the primary basis for the application, and it was based on my client’s misunderstanding of the form. So, should this be considered a “fraudulent” case?  I suppose it depends who you ask. The point being: When it is difficult to define fraud, it is difficult to characterize asylum cases as either fraudulent or non-fraudulent.

Although it is difficult to know the magnitude of the problem, it’s pretty clear that many asylum cases are fraudulent. The situation in New York is only the most recent illustration of the problem. So what’s the solution? I strongly believe that the government can do more to stop these fraudsters. I have seen enough of their work to know that they are not so smart and often not very careful (witness the Chinese case in NY where Asylum Officers detected the fraud when they noticed that many of the applications were suspiciously similar–in other words, the lawyers were too lazy and too cocky to bother making up unique stories for each asylum seeker).

Since many of these fake cases seem to originate with a (hopefully) small number of lawyers, paralegals, and translators, I believe the most effective solution is to investigate such people. DHS could send undercover “clients” to suspect attorneys to determine whether the attorneys are helping to concoct false cases. The “clients” could also visit paralegals and translators, who often work independent of attorneys, to see whether they are practicing law without a license. People who help create false cases should be prosecuted and jailed.  Lawyers who engage in such behavior should be disbarred.  

If DHS can bring more cases like the one in New York, it will help deter the paid “professionals” who create false asylum claims. It will also help preserve the integrity of the asylum system for those who need it. 

Continue reading

9 Comments

Fear and Loathing in the Asylum System, Part Deux

by Jason Dzubow

In this series (I suppose two posts counts as a series), I’ve been writing responses to some restrictionist proposals to reform the asylum system.  My first piece was a response to Professor Jan C. Ting, who suggested we move asylum adjudication from DHS and EOIR to the U.S. Department of State.  Today, I will examine Mark Krikorian’s suggestion in the New York Times that we expand the concept of a “safe third country.”

Mr. Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.  He writes that under the safe third country principle, which is “widely used elsewhere,” a foreigner “should not even be allowed to apply for asylum if he has passed through another country where he could have applied first.”  “Because claims are so hard to prove, asylum will always be one of the most fraud-ridden parts of the immigration system.”  By cutting out all who pass through “safe” third countries, such as Mexico, which is supposedly implementing a new law to protect asylum seekers, we would reduce the number of asylum seekers eligible to apply in the U.S.  Mr. Krikorian believes that by “narrowing the focus of the system, we can more easily cope with the lies and fraud that are an inevitable part of asylum adjudication.”

Mexico doesn't seem like such a safe third country to me.

The idea that we should not allow people to pass through other safe countries before seeking asylum in the United States seems reasonable.  However, there are several reasons why I don’t support Mr. Krikorian’s proposal (aside from the fact that it probably wouldn’t be in compliance with our current treaty obligations): 

The first issue is how to determine whether a given third country is “safe.”  For example, if an Eritrean escapes from her country and enters Sudan, and then flies directly to the U.S., is she barred from asylum here because Sudan is “safe?”  Most people would agree that Sudan is not safe, and specifically, it is not safe for Eritrean refugees, who are sometimes kidnapped and returned to their country (usually to complete their compulsory national service).  What about a person who passes through several different countries and then comes to the United States?  How do we decide if a given country is safe for that person?  To give another example, it is perfectly safe for me to go to Kenya for a vacation.  However, it is probably not safe for an Ethiopian refugee to live in Kenya.  So under Mr. Krikorian’s system, an asylum seeker would need to prove that every country she passed through was unsafe.  To present that proof would require a certain amount of resources–and probably a decent lawyer.  Only those who could afford to make their case would qualify for asylum.  This seems like an arbitrarily way to determine who qualifies for protection in our country.

A related problem is that adjudicators would have to make an independent determination about the safety of each country that the asylum seeker traveled through.  Such a burden on asylum adjudicators would complicate the cases, cause additional delay, and probably result in less fair decisions.

Another issue is that, as a world leader, other countries follow what we do.  If we reduce the humanitarian benefits we provide to asylum seekers, other countries will likely follow suit.  This would generally weaken the international system for protecting persecuted people.

Finally, behind Mr. Krikorian’s suggestion is the supposition that asylum seekers coming to the U.S. is a bad thing.  I think this is dead wrong.  Our country greatly benefits from asylum seekers.  This has been historically true, and continues to be true today.  My clients include doctors, journalists, people who are working with U.S. forces in the war on terror, engineers, and scientists.  I don’t always know whether they are telling me the truth about their asylum claims, but I have no doubt about the positive contributions they make to our country.  While I certainly do not support allowing fraudulent asylum seekers to take advantage of our generosity, I do not accept the premise that asylum seekers are a burden on our country. 

So, in the end, I oppose Mr. Krikorian’s “safe third country” idea.  As I mentioned in my first post in this series, the problem of asylum fraud is simply not severe enough to warrant dramatic restrictions on relief.  At least in my estimation, any reduction in fraud from tightening the system is not worth the inevitable harm to legitimate asylum seekers.

Continue reading

8 Comments

Fear and Loathing in the Asylum System

by Jason Dzubow

Since the news broke that Nafissatou Diallo, a hotel housekeeper in New York who claims she was raped by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, admitted to lying on her asylum application, there has been much discussion about the problem of asylum fraud.  “Solutions” to the problem of asylum fraud have come from various quarters, and so I thought I would address a couple of them here.

First, though, I must mention that the problem of asylum fraud seems to me overblown.  In my practice, I might do 35 or 40 asylum cases each year.  Some, I suspect to be fraudulent (though I try to be cautious in reaching such a conclusion, as I discuss here); others are clearly bona fide.  In the U.S., between the  Asylum Offices and the Immigration Courts, about 21,000 people are granted asylum each year.  Compared to the approximately one million immigrants coming to our country annually, the total number of asylum seekers is quite small (2%).  Even if many of the cases are false, the numbers just aren’t that significant.  That said, I suppose I understand the desire to reduce fraud, although I don’t accept that it is worth denying legitimate asylum seekers in order to weed out some fraudulent cases.  Anyway, enough of my ramblin’.  Here is one proposed solution, and my response:

Our Foreign Service Officers apparently have nothing better to do, so they might as well adjudicate asylum cases.

In an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Temple University Law School Professor Jan C. Ting suggests that “asylum claims should be removed from the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, and returned to the Department of State, whose foreign service officers are best informed of conditions in various foreign countries and therefore most likely to detect false stories and recognize the truth.”  Professor Ting claims that “there are strong political pressures today on the adjudicators at the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice” and that “Outside groups monitor the adjudicators to identify and apply political pressure on any whose asylum approval rate is lower than the average, or who approve some nationalities less than others, even though each case is supposed to be decided on its own set of facts.”

Professor Ting fails to name the nefarious “outside groups” that are supposedly applying “political pressure” to asylum adjudicators.  The reason for this, I suspect, is because there are no such people pressuring adjudicators.  Sure, there are groups (such as TRAC) that track and publish asylum statistics.  When such information is made public, outliers (decision-makers who grant asylum too often or too rarely) might feel pressure to conform, but this is hardly improper influence.  Indeed, when an adjudicator’s grant rate is out of line with the mainstream, it is completely appropriate to examine whether something is amiss.  Other “groups” might lobby for reforms to the system that make it easier to obtain asylum (just as certain restrictionist organizations lobby to tighten up the asylum system), but again, there is nothing improper about that.  Finally, as for Professor Ting’s proposal that foreign service officers who “are best informed of conditions in various foreign countries” should adjudicate cases, this seems impractical and unlikely to really reduce fraud.  The plurality of asylum seekers are from China.  Do we really have enough foreign service officers familiar with China to leave their duties at DOS and adjudicate thousands of asylum cases?  If we have an asylum seeker from, say, Burundi, do we search out and find a foreign service officer familiar with that country and send her to adjudicate the case?  I’d venture that whatever marginal benefit we might receive from using FSOs to adjudicate cases will be more than counteracted by the officers’ lack of experience (and interest) in deciding such cases.  In short, it is better to allow decision-makers who know the asylum law to make decisions, and if they need to consult an expert at DOS, they should do so.

Next, I’ll discuss a proposal by Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, to expand the “Safe Third Country” idea.  But I’ll save that for a future post.

Continue reading

1 Comment

My Guest Blog Posting in the New York Times

by Jason Dzubow

Earlier this week, the New York Times had an article about fraud and asylum, Immigrants May Be Fed False Stories to Bolster Asylum Pleas.  The article was inspired by revelations about the maid who accused former-IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault.  It turned out that the maid was an asylee, who likely gained asylum by fabricating a claim of past persecution. 

The NY Times asked several professionals in the field–including yours truly–to contribute their thoughts about how the asylum system can be improved.  Our comments appeared in a forum called Room for Debate.  I suggested that the government make a greater effort to prosecute lawyers and other people who help immigrants create fraudulent cases.  Not only is this more efficient than going after individual asylum seekers, but it ultimately would protect immigrants by reducing the number of fraudsters involved in the business.  Here are my comments (slightly modified since my essay in the Times was limited to 300 words and here I can use as many words as I want):  

Go After the Lawyers

There is an old adage in criminal law: Better that 10 guilty people go free than convict one innocent person. Our asylum law is based on the opposite philosophy: It is better to allow some asylum seekers to enter the United States fraudulently, than return one person to a country where he faces persecution or death. For this reason, the burden of proof for asylum is relatively low (as opposed to criminal law, where the burden for a conviction–beyond a reasonable doubt–is quite high). 

People reading and discussing my NY Times article.

This low burden, combined with the very valuable benefit of asylum, creates an incentive for people to make fraudulent claims. The trick is to reduce fraud without preventing legitimate asylum seekers from gaining protection.

It seems to me there are three main possibilities.

One option is to devote more resources to individual cases. If asylum officers, immigration judges and government attorneys could spend more time on each case, they would probably discover more instances of fraud. But attacking fraud on a case-by-case basis seems inefficient and, given limited resources, unlikely to significantly reduce the number of fraudulent claims.

Another option is to raise the burden of proof required to obtain asylum. The problem, of course, is that such a move would exclude legitimate asylum seekers, and would degrade the high moral standard our nation set when we created our asylum system.

A final — and to me, the most effective — option is to identify attorneys and others who prepare claims deemed suspicious. Investigating and, where appropriate, prosecuting these people can dramatically reduce fraud, since each such person produces and/or facilitates large numbers of false claims. A few high-profile prosecutions would also help deter others who might engage in such practices.

I have represented many asylum seekers, including journalists, human rights workers, diplomats, rape victims, and survivors of genocide. Such people have legitimate claims and would face persecution or worse if they returned home. In responding to fraud, we should remember our ethical responsibility to protect such people.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Strauss-Kahn’s Accuser May Have Lied to Gain Asylum in the US

by Jason Dzubow

As the sexual assault case against former International Monetary Fund head and potential French president Dominique Strauss-Kahn appears to be falling apart, attention has turned to the woman who accused him of attacking her. 

NY City Maids may have judged Mr. Strauss-Kahn too quickly.

Mr. Strauss-Kahn was initially arrested in May and charged with attempting to rape a maid in his New York hotel room.  He was released under very strict supervision and resigned his job at the IMF.  Now, the conditions of his release have been dramatically eased, and the case against him appears on the verge of collapse.  The reversal came about because the NY Police Department uncovered evidence that the purported victim lied about the incident and has committed various acts of fraud, including filing a phony claim for asylum.

The alleged victim is a Guinean woman who obtained her status in the U.S. in 2004 by claiming political asylum.  The Daily Mail reports that the victim admitted to the NYPD that much of her asylum claim had been fabricated:

In her application for asylum to the U.S. for herself and her daughter in 2004 she said that the home she shared with her husband in Guinea was burned by soldiers for the country’s regime. Her husband was then supposedly tortured in jail where he died of his injuries.  According to prosecutors, she later admitted this was a lie.  Prosecutors also said that she cried when she recounted to them the story from her asylum application of how she had been gang-raped in Guinea, but later admitted that this was also a lie.

The (probably) false asylum application, combined with other evidence of fraud (including a taped phone conversation where the victim indicated she hoped to make money by pursuing charges against Mr. Strauss-Kahn) have led the prosecution to radically re-assess the credibility of the victim and the strength of their case. 

If it turns out that the victim did lie on her asylum application, she faces deportation and potential jail time.  But in evaluating what happened in her asylum case (and in the Strauss-Kahn affair), there are a few points to keep in mind.  First, many asylum seekers with legitimate claims augment their stories with the encouragement of unscrupulous lawyers or notarios.  Such asylum seekers do not understand the law and they merely follow the instructions of their lawyers.  In this way, legitimate asylum seekers are sometimes denied asylum and (rightly) accused of fraud.  Of course, even though such people are naive and are victims of dishonest attorneys, they are responsible for their own actions and they need to be held accountable.  As the authorities investigate the Guinean woman and her asylum claim, they should determine who helped prepare the asylum case and–if that person was involved in the fraud–they should prosecute the person responsible.  While asylum fraud is a problem, the best way to reduce fraud is to prosecute the attorneys or notarios who prepare fraudulent claims.

In addition, we should keep in mind that the Guinean woman is innocent until proven guilty.  After Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s arrest, the press and the District Attorney essentially convicted him before evaluating the evidence.  We should not make the same mistake again.  Rather than rush to judgment, we should wait for the case to develop and see where the evidence leads.  Asylum seekers are often people who have suffered severe traumas.  Such people are particularly susceptible to manipulation and intimidation, and might sometimes change their stories under pressure.  Maybe that is what happened here, and maybe not.  Since we don’t yet know, we should take a lesson from the case of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, and avoid reaching a conclusion until we know more.

Continue reading

4 Comments