A recent report from the Congressional Research Service concludes that “data analysis of six selected countries (the PRC, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, and Mexico) suggests that conditions in the source countries are likely the driving force behind asylum seekers.” These six countries represent the majority of asylum seekers coming to the U.S., and the new report is significant for several reasons.
CRS employs some of the most logical people on Capitol Hill.
First, critics of the asylum system claim that it is a backdoor for economic migrants and that many asylum cases are fraudulent. While fraud is a problem and economic conditions certainly affect the flow of migrants (including asylum seekers), the CRS report lends support to pro-asylum types (such as myself), who believe that most asylum seekers are fleeing persecution and repression in their homelands.
Second, since CRS is the organization tasked with supporting “the Members, committees, and leaders of the House and Senate at all stages of the legislative process,” its policy papers are influential in shaping legislation. Maybe it is naive to believe that ideologues in Congress will consider the new report when making policy, but at least those in the pro-asylum camp will have some new data to help make their arguments.
Finally, there are a couple of asylum-related issues pending in the current Congress. One is the Refugee Protection Act, which offers some new protections to asylum seekers. The CRS report mentions the RFA, and seems to have been written with that bill in mind. The RFA has been floating around the Senate for over a year, and no progress seems forthcoming. However, Zoe Lofgren–a great advocate for protecting immigrants–introduced a companion bill in the House last month. So perhaps we will see some action on this front.
The other piece of asylum-related news in Congress is Senator Rand Paul’s hearing on terrorism and asylum. Senator Paul called for hearings after two Iraqi refugees were arrested on terrorism charges (I wrote about this here). The hearing is scheduled for July 13, 2011. The CRS report is relevant to this hearing as well. Although there are legitimate concerns related to national security and asylum, the instances of asylum seekers or refugees committing (or being accused of) terrorist acts are extremely rare. The report shows that many asylum seekers are genuine refugees who face persecution in their home countries. The Senate should keep this in mind when balancing national security with our humanitarian and moral responsibilities.
I am pleased to let you know about a new book, Legal Briefs on Immigration Reform from 25 of the Top Legal Minds in the Country. For the book, editors Deborah Robinson and Mona Parsa asked 25 of The Top Legal Minds in the Country this question: If you were called upon by the President of the United States to recommend a piece of immigration legislation that could pass the legal test of the U.S. Constitution and both houses of Congress, what would it include? This book is their answer.
I am also pleased to let you know that your humble blogger is one of the “Legal Minds.” In fact, I am the number one legal mind! The contributors are:
Jason A. Dzubow, Esq. Gary E. Endelman, Esq., Ph.D. Michael Fix, Esq., Austin T. Fragomen, Esq. Chris E. Gafner, Esq. Regina Germain, Esq. Bill Ong Hing, Esq. Mark Krikorian Ira J. Kurzban, Esq. Heather Mac Donald, Esq. Daniel J. McNeil, Esq. Cyrus D. Mehta, Esq. Victoria F. Neilson, Esq. Nancy A. Noonan, Esq. Julie A. Pace, Esq. Renée M. Saucedo, Esq. David A. Selden, Esq. Patrick Shen, Esq. Gregory Siskind, Esq. Rita Sostrin, Esq. Nicomedes E. Suriel, Esq. Carol M. Swain, Ph.D., M.L.S. Jennifer Van Hook, Ph.D. Michael Wildes, Esq. Stephen Yale-Loehr, Esq.
Now, some nattering nabobs might point out that the list of legal minds is alphabetical, and my name happens to be first because it comes earliest in the alphabet. Don’t believe it! As far as I can tell, I am numero uno (take that Kurzban, with your obnoxious “K” and Germain with your sad little “G”!).
The book actually looks to be a great resource for people interested in immigration reform. I have not yet read the contributions by other authors, but they seem intriguing. Here are some that caught my eye: Regina Germain writes about Restoring Dignity to the Asylum Process; Victoria Neilson writes about immigration and LGBT issues, which happens to be a very timely topic; and Michael Wildes, a former mayor, writes about the effects of immigration on our economy. Other authors write about the current effort to repeal birthright citizenship, and the book includes at least a few authors who are generally considered anti-immigration, such as Mark Krikorian from the Center for Immigration Studies.
All in all, it looks to be a valuable source of information for policy makers and others interested in immigration issues. To learn more, and to buy the book, visit the website.
According to a recent report, about 4,000 people known to be stateless are living in the United States. Probably, many more are living here under the radar. Refugees International reports that there are over 12 million stateless people world-wide: “Statelessness results from factors such as political change, border demarcation or secession, forced expulsion, discrimination, nationality based solely on descent, and laws regulating marriage and birth registration.” Stateless people have “limited access to health care and education; prospects for employment are poor, leading to generations of poverty; and their right to freedom of movement is routinely violated. Stateless people face social exclusion, harassment, and violence.”
Current U.S. law does not provide stateless people with any legal status. Unable to return to their former countries, stateless individuals living in the United States risk being detained and must apply annually for permission to work. They also face travel restrictions and are often required to report regularly to immigration officials–a requirement that can last indefinitely.
When the Dan Glickman of Refugees International testified before Congress last month, he gave the example of Tatianna, a stateless woman from the former Soviet Union:
Tatianna is a 61 year-old mother and grandmother, a piano teacher who has lived in the United States for over 20 years. She was born in Russia during Soviet times and eventually moved to what is now Ukraine. In 1992, after being persecuted by the authorities for her political beliefs, she came to the United States with the younger of two sons and applied for asylum. Their case was denied in 1997. Following its independence Ukraine passed a law requiring people to have resided in Ukraine for two years following independence to be eligible for citizenship. Tatianna had fled before having lived in Ukraine for two years and she is therefore not recognized as a Ukrainian citizen. Russia doesn’t recognize Tatianna as a citizen either because Russian nationality laws require individuals to have lived in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which Tatianna did not.
This means that the United States had nowhere to return Tatianna after denying her asylum claim. Tatiana and her son are stateless. No country recognizes Tatianna as a citizen. She has no nationality, and there is no legal pathway for her to acquire citizenship in the U.S. She lives in limbo and is unable to fully participate in society. She has no travel documents and no means to acquire them. She has been separated from some of her closest family members for decades. And although she and her son have paid taxes in the United States since they arrived 20 years ago, she is not eligible for social security. Tatianna must check in with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) every month by telephone and every six months in person. She never knows what might happen when she goes to DHS and lives in fear that she could be arbitrarily jailed.
The proposed Refugee Protection Act addresses the problem of statelessness and provides a path for stateless residents of the U.S. to obtain their permanent residency and ultimately their citizenship. Hopefully, support for the RPA will gain momentum and provide help to stateless people in the United States.
The RPA provides important new protections to asylum seekers, particularly the most vulnerable asylum seekers such as people who are pro se or detained. However, I can think of a couple important issues that are not addressed. Below are some problems that my clients have faced over and over again, and some suggested solutions.
The Asylum Clock
The broken asylum clock isn't even correct twice a day
Within the circle of attorneys who represent asylum seekers, the “asylum clock” may be the most discussed problem in need of resolution (Penn State Dickinson School of Law recently issued a comprehensive report about the asylum clock). When a client files an affirmative application for asylum, the clock starts to run. When the clock reaches 150 days, the applicant may file for an Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”). The EAD is very important because it allows an asylum seeker to work legally in the United States, and serves as a form of identification. The problem is, if the alien does anything to delay his case, the clock stops, and generally will not re-start. So, for example, if an alien is represented by counsel, and the attorney cannot accept a particular court date due to a conflict, the clock stops and the alien never receives an EAD. Also, when an unrepresented asylum seeker asks for more time to find an attorney, the clock stops. It is usually impossible to restart the clock.
Aliens who enter the United States without inspection or aliens who file for asylum after one year in the U.S. do not have a clock, and it is usually not possible for them to obtain an EAD.
Thus, many asylum seekers endure one to two year waits (which are common in Immigration Court) without the ability to work legally, and without any form of identification.
One possible solution to this problem is to give the Immigration Judges more authority to grant an EAD. If the alien is deliberately causing delay in his case, the IJ should not grant an EAD. But where the delay is not caused by the alien or is reasonable, the alien should receive an EAD.
Employment Authorization Document
A second area in need of reform is the EAD itself. Aliens granted asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the UN Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) are entitled to an EAD. The EAD is valid for one year and must then be renewed. The validity period of the EAD should be changed to at least two years.
Aliens with asylum generally apply for their lawful permanent residency (i.e., their green card) after one year. However, aliens who have withholding of removal or CAT relief are not eligible to become LPRs. Such aliens must renew their EADs every year. This can be problematic for a number of reasons. First, the cost to renew is $340.00 every year. For aliens with limited means, this sum may be prohibitive. Second, assuming the alien remembers to file on time, the new EAD may or may not arrive prior to the expiration of the old EAD. If the new EAD does not arrive in time, the alien’s job might be jeopardized, as employers will often terminate employees without a valid EAD. Third, many states link the driver’s license to the EAD, so when the EAD expires, the driver’s license expires. Even if the EAD arrives on time, there may be a delay in renewing the driver’s license. The alien could be left without a valid driver’s license (or any valid ID).
These problems would be greatly reduced if the EAD were valid for two (or more) years, instead of one year.
Finally, Some Media Attention
The RPA has been largly ignored by the media. Last week, Josh Shahyar had an article in the Huffington Post, “The Immigration Bill No One Is Talking About.” Hopefully the article adds some momentum to the push for this worthy piece of legislation.
The Senate Judiciary committee held a hearing yesterday on the Refugee Protection Act. I wasn’t able to attend, but the Senate conveniently records such hearings, and you can view it here.
Doggone it, people like the RPA
My friend who attended thought it did not go very well for supporters of the bill. I can’t say I agree, though the last five minutes, when neither of the pro-RPA witnesses could answer Senator Franken’s softball questions and each tried to defer to the other, was not a shining moment. Here are some other moments worth mentioning:
The ranking Republican, Senator Sessions from Alabama, raised some legitimate (and some not-so-legitimate) concerns that will probably need to be addressed if the bill is ever to become law. Of course, the first issue was national security. He felt that the RPA would allow Osama Bin Laden’s wife (wives?) and children to claim asylum in the United States, as the law relaxes barriers for family members of terrorists. Given the limited number of people we can admit each year, he argued, we would be better off admitting people without close ties to terrorists. He also stated that the RPA would broaden the definition of “asylum seeker,” and thus encourage more fraudulent claims. He questioned how many people we could realistically allow to enter the United States as refugees and asylees. He argued that we could not admit everyone who meets the definition of a refugee, and said that if things fell apart in Afghanistan or Iraq, we could not take in all the people who sided with us in those wars.
There were two pro-RPA witnesses, Dan Glickman of Refugees International and Patrick Giantonio of Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates. They argued that the one-year filing deadline does not serve its intended purpose of reducing fraud. Mr. Giantonio noted that many asylum seekers who fail to file within one year of arrival receive withholding of removal or relief under the UN Convention Against Torture. Both forms of relief have a higher burden of proof than asylum. Thus, if the one year deadline were not an issue, such people would have qualified for asylum (I agree with this point). From the alien’s point of view, asylum is a more desirable outcome than the other forms of relief, but the witnesses did not mention the benefits of asylum. The pro-RPA witnesses also emphasized that the bill would not compromise national security because refugees and asylum seekers would remain subject to all the same background checks that are currently required. Mr. Giantonio also briefly mentioned some of the deleterious effects of immigration detention on asylum seekers.
Igor V. Timofeyev, a former DHS official and a Soviet Jewish refugee, testified in his personal capacity. He appeared as the anti-RPA witness, though his criticisms were fairly tame (refreshing given the normal discourse on most immigration-related issues). His concerns were national security, national security, and national security. He also mentioned that federal appeals courts are overburdened with immigration cases.
Finally, it bears mentioning that Senator Leahy included in the record a letter signed by 89 faith-based, human rights, legal services and refugee assistance organizations and 99 individual asylum law practitioners, pro bono attorneys, law professors and other experts in the field (including this humble blogger).
Under INA § 235(b), an alien who appears at the border and claims asylum or expresses a fear of persecution must be interviewed. The Refugee Protection Act would require DHS to record these interviews.
A DHS employee demonstrates the agency's latest recording equipment
Currently, asylum interviews at the border (or the airport) are generally not recorded. As a result, there are often disputes about what the alien said at the interview. For example, I worked on a case recently where an Ethiopian asylum seeker entered the United States at the Mexican border. He was immediately detained and requested asylum. His friend and traveling companion served as my client’s interpreter. The Border Patrol agent wrote down the client’s responses to the agent’s questions. The written statement was not consistent with my client’s statements in court, and the IJ found the client’s testimony incredible; she denied asylum. On appeal, the BIA reversed and remanded the case for, among other things, a more thorough examination of what happened at the border. Had the border conversation been recorded, the IJ could have more definitively determined whether an inconsistency existed, and could have made a more accurate credibility determination.
IJs often rely on prior inconsistent statements to make adverse credibility findings, and I have worked on a number of cases where prior statements were used for impeachment purposes. Such statements are often not recorded (neither the Border Patrol nor the Asylum Office records interviews). Thus, the accuracy of the prior statements is frequently an issue. If the interviews were recorded, we would have a more accurate record, and hence, more accurate credibility determinations. The RPA provides for recorded interviews at the border. It should also provide for recorded interviews at the Asylum Office.
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing on “Renewing America’s Commitment to the Refugee Convention: The Refugee Protection Act of 2010” for Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The scheduled witnesses are: (1) The Honorable Dan Glickman, President, Refugees International; (2) Patrick Giantonio, Executive Director, Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates; and (3) Igor V. Timofeyev, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP
This is the fifth part in an ongoing series about the Refugee Protection Act. The RPA contains many provisions to improve legal services and legal access for asylum seekers.
The root cause of many problems in the asylum system is that aliens are not provided with counsel. According to TRAC, a website that gathers statistical information on immigration matters, 86% of unrepresented asylum seekers are denied asylum in Immigration Court. That compares with an overall national average denial rate of 57% (this figure includes represented and unrepresented asylum seekers in Court). Although I have not seen any statistics, I imagine that the success rate of detained asylum seekers is even lower—such aliens have limited access to attorneys and resources to help them with their applications. The RPA would improve this situation.
The RPA provides improved access to attorneys in several ways. First, the new law allows the Attorney General or his designee (presumably the Immigration Judge) to appoint counsel “if the fair resolution or effective adjudication of the proceedings would be served by appointment of counsel.” Currently, IJs can work with local non-profits or AILA to find pro bono counsel for certain cases. This method of procuring counsel is ad hoc, and depends on the availability of pro bono counsel. The RPA would improve the situation, but would still give the IJ (an interested party) the authority to decide whether an attorney is needed. Ideally, any alien who expresses a fear of return should be screened by an independent reviewer to determine whether an attorney is necessary. The RPA as written does not provide for an independent decision concerning the need for counsel.
Second, the RPA provides detained asylum seekers with improved access to legal services and resources. It requires an on-site law library at every detention facility, free access to legal research and correspondence, including computers and printers, access to confidential meeting space to confer with legal counsel, and reasonable access to telephones to call legal representatives without charge. The RPA also prohibits the transfer of a detainee if it would impair an existing attorney-client relationship. Under the RPA, all new detention facilities must be located within 50 miles of a “community in which there is a demonstrated capacity to provide free or low-cost legal representation,” and by January 2014, all detention facilities must comply with this location requirement.
Third, the RPA establishes a National Legal Orientation Support and Training Center to “ensure quality and consistent implementation of group legal orientation programs nationwide.” The Center will provide training to non-profit agencies that will, in turn, provide legal orientation and “know your rights” presentations to detained aliens. The RPA would also provide grants to the non-profit agencies.
By increasing access to counsel for detained and non-detained asylum seekers, the RPA would help protect legitimate asylum seekers by ensuring that their claims are properly prepared and presented for adjudication.
This is part four in a series of posts about the Refugee Protection Act (“RPA”), a bill introduced by Senators Leahy and Levin in the United States Senate. The RPA would modify the requirements for asylum by changing the requirement that a “central reason” for the persecution is a protected ground.
In order to qualify for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on a protected ground (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, particular social group). The REAL ID Act (effective May 11, 2005) modified this definition, and the law now requires that “at least one central reason” for the persecution must be a protected ground. The BIA found that this new requirement did not “radically alter[]” existing law. See In re: J-B-N- & S-M-, 24 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 2007).
While the law may not have been radically altered, the REAL ID Act makes it more difficult for asylum seekers to obtain relief. I worked on a case in the Fourth Circuit (ably litigated at the agency level by the University of Maryland Law School Clinic) where an El Salvadoran man had been repeatedly harassed and beaten by members of the MS-13 gang. The gang attacked him for several reasons: (1) they did not want him to date a certain girl; (2) they wanted to steal his money; and (3) they did not want him to attend the Seventh Day Adventist Church. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) specifically found that the harm faced by the asylum seeker rose to the level of persecution, and she told him: “I think you are in a terrible situation and I could not have more sympathy for you.” However, both the IJ and the BIA found that the “central reasons” for the persecution were that the gang did not want my client to date the girl and the gang wanted to rob him–these are not protected grounds. The BIA found that “even assuming… religion was one motive, we do not find his religion to be ‘at least one central reason’ for the persecution.” The Fourth Circuit agreed and denied our Petition for Review. See Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2009).
What motivates this guy?
The difficulty in Quinteros-Mendoza was that the IJ had to determine the motivation of the gang members. It is difficult enough to establish the motivation of a persecutor, let alone to rank that motivation as “one central reason” for the persecution. The RPA would relax this requirement. The law would be changed so that the applicant must prove only that a protected ground is “a factor in the applicant’s persecution or fear of persecution.”
Where an asylum applicant faces persecution, he should not be required to demonstrate the motivation for his persecutor’s actions with such specificity. The RPA would correct this problem.
This is part three in a series about the Refugee Protection Act. The RPA provides guidance about what constitutes a “particular social group.”
A refugee is defined as a person with a well founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. See INA § 101(a)(42)(A). There has been much litigation concerning what constitutes a “particular social group.”
The Refugee Protection Act provides helpful guidance on what constitutes a “particular social group.” The RPA states:
For purposes of determinations under the Act, any group whose members share a characteristic that is either immutable or fundamental to identity, conscience, or the exercise of the person’s human rights such that the person should not be required to change it, shall be deemed a particular social group, without any additional requirement.
While this provision makes the definition of “particular social group” more specific, it still leaves open at least one important question: Will the definition of “particular social group” apply to former members of criminal organizations? In the Seventh Circuit case, Ramos v. Holder, 589 F.3d 426 (7th Cir. 2009), the court held that former gang members might constitute a particular social group. If the Refugee Protection Act defines a “particular social group” as “any group whose members share a characteristic that is… immutable,” then former gang members would qualify as a particular social group. Current–as opposed to former–gang members would not qualify as a particular social group because gang membership is not immutable. In other words, it is possible to quit the gang. Former gang membership is immutable, because it is not possible for an alien to change the fact that he once belonged to a criminal gang. Under the RPA, it seems that a former member of any organization would be part of a particular social group
Ex-members of the knitting circle form a particular social group
Even if former gang members constitute a particular social group, they would likely be ineligible for asylum based on criminal and security-related grounds.
I have worked on several cases where former gang members feared persecution by gangs. In one case, several members of my client’s family had been killed. My client was granting withholding of removal based on his particular social group (his family; not his former gang membership). In another case, my client was denied relief where the IJ found that he did not belong to a particular social group. In both cases, the clients faced harm from the gang because they quit the gang. The danger of gang violence against former gang members is very real. In a well known case, Edgar Chocoy, a 16-year-old former member of the MS-13 gang, was ordered removed from the United States. Shortly after he returned to Guatemala, gang members murdered him.
The Refugee Protection Act should provide protection for former gang members who face harm in their countries. While we must be cognizant of security concerns (and of offering benefits to criminals), we must also recognize the severe threat faced by legitimate former gang members.
This is part dieux in our series of posts about the Refugee Protection Act. Today’s topic is the “Material Support Bar,” INA § 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI), which states that an alien who commits an act that he “knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support” to a terrorist organization is inadmissible. As written, the law makes no exception for instances where the alien has been coerced into providing support. The RPA would change that.
About a year ago, I represented an elderly Iraqi Christian woman who had received threats from unknown people seeking to extort money. The people threatened to murder her son. As a result of the threats, and in order to save her son, the women gave money to the extortionists. Given that these people were likely terrorists, the woman faced a bar to obtaining asylum in the U.S. We relied on a USCIS memorandum, which allowed for limited exceptions to the material support bar in the case of duress, and the woman received asylum. A pro se applicant might not have access to that memorandum, and might not be able to relate the relevant facts necessary to meet the exception to the material support bar.
The Refugee Protection Act creates an exception to the material support bar for people who have been coerced to provide material support to terrorists. This would reduce or eliminate the problem of denying asylum to people who have been victimized by terrorists.
The Refugee Protection Act of 2010 is currently working its way through Congress. The proposed law makes some pretty significant changes to the asylum laws of the United States. Most advocacy groups are endorsing the bill, though it seems not to have captured the attention of the mainstream media. As an attorney who represents asylum seekers, I thought I would share my perspective on the legislation by examining how it would have affected some of my cases had it been the law. The RFA (or at least my copy of the RFA) is 78 pages long, so there is a lot to discuss. So this will be the first part in a series of posts about the RFA. Today’s topic: The Refugee Protection Act of 2010 eliminates the requirement that an asylum seeker files for asylum within one year of arrival in the United States.
The current law puts the "dead" in deadline
INA § 208(a)(2)(B) states that in order to qualify for asylum an alien must demonstrate by “clear and convincing evidence that the application [for asylum] has been filed within 1 year after the date of alien’s arrival in the United States.” If the alien fails to timely file for asylum, he or she will not qualify for that relief, but may still apply for withholding of removal pursuant to INA § 241(b)(3) or relief pursuant to the UN Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
For aliens represented by competent counsel, it is often possible to demonstrate “changed circumstances” or “extraordinary circumstances,” either of which can excuse the one year filing deadline. See INA § 208(a)(2)(D). In my own practice, I have encountered many cases where the alien has not filed within one year of arrival. In most cases, we have been able to demonstrate “changed circumstances” or “extraordinary circumstances,” and the alien has qualified for asylum.
For aliens who are unrepresented, the one-year bar presents a barrier to legitimate claims. The purpose of the bar is to help eliminate fraudulent claims. However, there are legitimate reasons why an alien might fail to file for asylum within one year of arrival in our country. Some examples:
Avoidance – I had one case where a political activist from Zimbabwe was arrested and then raped by the police. After she came to the U.S., the psychological trauma the alien suffered caused her to avoid re-visiting the events in her country (which would have been necessary in order to prepare her asylum application). As a result, she did not complete the asylum application within one year. The Asylum Office denied her case because she failed to file for asylum within one year of her arrival (she was pro se), and her case was referred to an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ ultimately granted asylum (with the agreement of the DHS attorney) after we demonstrated that the alien’s failure to file within one year was due to “extraordinary circumstances,” i.e., the psychological trauma of her rape, and the resulting avoidance of re-visiting those events. Had this alien been unrepresented, she might not have been able to demonstrate that she qualified for an exception to the one-year rule.
Alternative Relief – I represented a man from a prominent family in Peru. After a change in government, the man received anonymous death threats and was followed by unknown people. He came to the United States, but did not file for asylum because he expected to obtain his residency based on marriage to a U.S. citizen. The marriage did not succeed, so he applied late for asylum. He was not represented by counsel. The Asylum Office referred his case to the IJ based on the failure to comply with the one-year filing requirement. As a compromise, the DHS attorney and the IJ agreed to grant of withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3). As a result, the alien has been able to remain in the U.S., but he repeatedly had to appear before the Detention and Removal Office, officers in that office improperly threatened to remove him to a third country, and he has had to renew his work permit every year, which makes it difficult to maintain employment. If he marries a U.S. citizen, he could re-open his case and obtain his residency based on the marriage.
Changed Circumstances & Other Obligations – In another example, I represented a Tuareg woman from Niger who feared return to her country after the government began a war with the Tuareg people and after her grandmother was killed by a land mine. The woman, who represented herself, failed to file for asylum within one year because (1) the conflict was dormant when she first arrived in the United States, so she did not fear return, and (2) she was the primary caretaker for her father, and was too occupied to prepare her case. Her sister, who had the exact same case and also filed late, received asylum from the Asylum Office. My client’s case was referred to the IJ, and after much discussion, the IJ and the DHS attorney agreed to a grant of asylum.
In the above examples, the one-year bar resulted in wasted judicial resources and hardship for legitimate asylum seekers. Had these aliens been unrepresented before the IJ, their cases would likely have been denied (all the cases were denied by the Asylum Office, where the aliens were without representation). Thus, these aliens—who were later determined to be legitimate refugees—were initially denied asylum solely because they had not complied with the one-year filing requirement for asylum. Had they not been represented before the IJ, these aliens likely would have been ordered removed to countries where they faced persecution.
The Refugee Protection Act would eliminate the one year filing deadline, and would protect legitimate asylum seekers such as the aliens discussed above.
Human Rights First is commemorating the Refugee Protection Act with a new video, featuring a bi-partisan group of commentators. I particularly like the quote from Zbigniew Brzezinski, that helping refugees is not only true to America’s moral values, but it has enriched our nation. From the HRF website:
The 30th Anniversary of this landmark piece of legislation offers an occasion to highlight the United States achievements under the Refugee Act, honor the contributions refugees and their children have made to the diverse fabric of American society, and evaluate the ways in which policymakers can work together to overcome the current challenges in the U.S. refugee resettlement and asylum systems.
The Refugee Protection Act of 2010 has been introduced to address some of the “current challenges in the U.S. refugee resettlement and asylum systems.”
