An Open Letter to the “Complicit” Asylum Officer

by Jason Dzubow

By now, you’re probably familiar with the famous, anonymous op-ed in the New York Times, written by a high-level member of the White House staff who is “resisting” President Trump. But in asylum-world, there’s another anonymous article getting attention. It’s an interview in Topic Magazine with an un-named asylum officer.

The interview is sad and poignant. It’s obvious that the officer cares about his (or her) job and the individuals who are seeking protection in the United States. With the advent of the Trump Administration and it’s increasingly hostile approach to asylum seekers, the officer is facing a crisis of conscious: “I struggle every single day with how to determine whether I’m causing more harm than good,” the officer states.

Asylum Officers review the latest Trump Administration policy memo.

One example the officer gives is the implementation of the infamous “zero tolerance” policy at the border, where parents and children were separated, often by trickery, and with no real plan for reunification:

I was interviewing moms in detention who were separated from their children. [U.S. government officials] took their children away from them. All that they wanted from me was to know where their kids were. They would ask me, “Where are my children?” But I was told not to tell them where their kids were. I was told not to tell them. When I say I’m complicit, this is what I mean.

Obviously, looking a desperate mother in the eyes and declining to give her information about her children is a soul-crushing experience. And, according to the anonymous officer, the Administration’s policies are having a deleterious effect on asylum officers:

People in the office are demoralized. I think the job was hard to begin with. There were already very high expectations, very rigorous screenings. Now, there is a fear among upper-level officers that the [asylum] program could get cut altogether, so everyone is trying very hard to not make any mistakes so that the program doesn’t get cut. My worry is that this will lead to people who should get asylum not getting asylum…. [At] this point, I can’t yet fathom what [bad thing] will happen next. I don’t want to, but I’m sure it will come. I never thought they would take kids away from their parents. What else could they do? They did that, so they could do anything.

What should a decent, moral person do in a situation like this? For me (as an outsider), the answer is not so clear. I have friends who have left government because they could not contribute to the goals of the Trump Administration. Other friends have chosen to stay, to do whatever good they can. Which approach is better probably depends on the individual and her circumstances, and I am quite sure it is not an easy decision either way.

If it were me, one factor in deciding whether to stay or go would be the impact of my choice on the asylum system. I have written this before, but it bears repeating here: In many ways our asylum system is sacred. Our country grants protection to strangers who arrive on our shores seeking refuge from danger. We offer asylum in part because it serves our national interests. But we also offer asylum because we are generous and good. By helping others, we help define ourselves. My decision to leave would depend in part on whether I thought my departure would make “the system” better or worse.

Asylum Officers, Immigration Judges, and government attorneys implement the asylum law. Without them, there would be no humanitarian immigration system. In my experience, most of these people are hard working. The majority are clearly committed to the rule of law, and to Justice (though we don’t always agree on what “Justice” looks like). They take their responsibilities seriously and recognize the life-changing nature of their work. They are the ones who have to make the difficult choices (choices that lawyers like me do not have to make): Whether to grant a close case or deny a sympathetic one that simply does not qualify for relief; whether to give an applicant the benefit of the doubt; whether to grant or deny as a matter of discretion. These are the tough choices that ultimately allow “the system” to continue functioning.

So it seems to me, the question for the anonymous asylum officer and many hundreds like him, is whether there is still room in the system–and in his particular job–to do Justice. In the case of our officer, it appears that such room still exists.

Even as the Trump Administration is working overtime to narrow the path for asylum seekers, it is still possible to do good. As the anonymous officer notes, “there is still space to be fair, and to provide opportunities for people.” And it’s not just fairness; it’s also kindness. Speaking about female asylum seekers detained at the Southern border, the officer says:

I think that oftentimes for the women who are detained at those facilities, [my interaction with them] will be the first moment that someone will be kind to them. The very first time in the whole process. They are not treated well at the border, by other agents in other agencies….

The value of such kindness is difficult to overstate. It can be the difference between hope and despair. Even for people who are ultimately denied, the fact that they were treated with respect and fairness makes a real difference. I have seen that myself many times.

As an attorney who represents asylum seekers, I hope that the anonymous officer will stay. When good people depart government service, the rule of law is degraded. The decency and compassion that have been–to borrow a word–the loadstars of our asylum system, are further eroded. And of course, the erosion of our humanitarian immigration system also marks a degradation of our country’s humanity.

These days, many good people in government are conflicted. The anonymous officer states, “I think about it [quitting] all the time.” I don’t blame the officer for this. It is painful to compromise one’s morals. But now, more than ever, I think we need people like this officer to stay. To do their jobs. And to pursue Justice.

Continue reading

196 Comments

Attorney General Seeks to Limit Asylum… Or Something

by Jason Dzubow

The Attorney General, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, has been busy “certifying” cases to himself in order to (apparently) reduce protections for certain asylum seekers. I want to talk about two cases in particular, but first, let’s talk about the process that Mr. Sessions is following.

“Oh Magoo, you’ve done it again!”

The decisions in question involve cases that were before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”), the administrative appellate body that interprets the nation’s immigration laws. The BIA has been called (sometimes derisively) the “Supreme Court of immigration law.” The BIA is not actually a court in the normal sense of the word (and, by the way, neither are the Immigration Courts). Instead, it is an office within the U.S. Department of Justice. The leader of the Department of Justice is the Attorney General (“AG”). So in essence, the BIA derives its power from the AG, who is the ultimate “decider” when it comes to BIA cases.

What has been happening recently is that Mr. Sessions has been “certifying” cases from the BIA to himself. Basically, this means that he is taking the cases from the BIA and changing the Board’s decisions. In a sense, this is nothing new–previous AGs have done the same thing on occasion. But the concern here is two-fold: Substantively, the AG seems to be moving towards limiting the scope of asylum protections in some types of cases, and procedurally, the AG’s actions do not comport with due process of law, at least as that concept is understood in non-totalitarian countries.

The first case I want to discuss is Matter of E-F-H-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 226 (AG 2018). In that case, the AG vacated a 2014 BIA decision (also called Matter of E-F-H-L-) and returned the matter to the Immigration Judge (the letters in the case name refer to the alien’s initials). The 2014 case stands for the proposition that an asylum applicant is entitled to a hearing on the merits of her application, including an opportunity to provide oral testimony and other evidence, “without first having to establish prima facie eligibility for the requested relief.” In other words, the case is widely viewed as re-affirming the right to a hearing, even if the asylum claim, as articulated by the applicant, is legally insufficient.

In civil litigation, there is something called “failure to state a claim.” Judges routinely dismiss lawsuits if they determine that a litigant’s claim–even if taken as true–does not entitled the litigant to relief. In our adversarial system, this makes sense. Why waste a court’s time (or the jury’s time) adjudicating the facts of a case if those facts do not entitle the claimant to any relief? And why not do the same thing for asylum applicants?

The main objection is that many asylum applicants are unrepresented, and do not know how to articulate their claims effectively. Only in the course of testimony might an applicant’s claim become apparent (and that is especially true in a case like E-F-H-L-, where there is a complicated “particular social group” analysis). Most Immigration Court hearings are fairly truncated affairs to begin with, and so further curtailing an applicant’s ability to present his case makes it even more likely that overworked judges will take the easy route and dismiss an asylum claim before the applicant is able to fully develop his case. The result, of course, will be that legitimate asylum seekers are denied protection.

So it is concerning that Mr. Sessions has vacated E-F-H-L-. But what comes next is not yet clear. The case has been returned to the Immigration Court for further decision-making, and as I read the case, it seems unlikely that the Judge or the BIA would need to rule on E-F-H-L-‘s right to a full hearing. According to the AG’s decision, E-F-H-L- married a U.S. citizen and withdrew his asylum claim. If that is true, there is little reason to think we will hear anything more about this particular case.

The problem, though, is that the AG presumably vacated E-F-H-L- for a reason. I expect the reason is that he wants to create a new standard (in a different alien’s case) for adjudicating asylum claims. What this standard will be, we do not yet know, but given Mr. Sessions’s jaundiced view of asylum seekers, I’m not feeling optimistic. Whatever he does, Mr. Sessions is limited by the statute and by the courts, and so hopefully, it will not be as bad as we fear.

The second case I want to discuss is Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2018). Mr. Sessions has certified that BIA case to himself and requested new briefs (legal arguments) from the parties and from amici (interested organizations). The question Mr. Sessions wants briefed is this:

Whether, and under what circumstances, being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable “particular social group” for purposes of an application for asylum or withholding of removal.

We don’t know, but presumably the goal here is to block asylum seekers who fear harm from “private criminal activity.” This might, for example, block people fleeing harm from gangs in Central America, or victims of domestic violence. It potentially affects other types of asylum claims as well.

The main problem is that Mr. Sessions has asked for briefing on a question that is vague. He has not given us the facts of the case, thus making it difficult to write an effective brief, since cases are fact specific. He even tried to hide the name of the attorney representing A-B-; perhaps in an effort to block advocates from learning more about the case.

This is not how due process works, and I imagine that whatever decision the AG issues in A-B- will be vulnerable to review by the federal appellate courts, which tend to look askance at such blatant (and amateurish) violations of due process.

That the Attorney General of the United States would engage in such obvious procedural misfeasance is very concerning. Since we don’t know what the AG is really asking for, his request for amici briefs is completely disingenuous. Indeed, even if you favor limiting the scope of asylum, you should be concerned when our country’s top law enforcement officer demonstrates such contempt for the rule of law.

Where the AG is heading with all this, we shall see. The widespread belief among advocates is that in anticipation of DACA and TPS ending, Mr. Sessions is planning to roll back protections for certain asylum seekers, specifically people facing harm from gangs and also victims of domestic violence. But he could also be targeting LGBT asylum seekers who fear community (as opposed to government) persecution, victims of female genital mutilation, and victims of terrorist groups, among others.

Finally, it’s difficult not to see the irony here. For years, advocates for asylum seekers have been litigating to expand protections for a wider range of persecuted individuals, particular women, who often face harm not contemplated by the people (mostly white men) who came up with the definition of “refugee” after World War II. However, by pursuing litigation—rather than legislation—we have left ourselves vulnerable to a restrictionist Administration that now seeks to contract that definition.

Don’t get me wrong—I certainly don’t blame advocates for our current woes; we tried and failed legislatively at least once. But I do hope that if the pendulum swings back, and the public mood becomes more favorable, we will try again to create a refugee law that is more in-tune with the types of harm individuals face today. Until then, we are stuck litigating our clients’ cases in an uncertain environment, against an Attorney General who has little interest in playing by the rules.

Continue reading

158 Comments

The Attorney General’s Jaundiced–and Inaccurate–View of Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

In a speech last week to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (the office that administers the nation’s immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals), Attorney General and living Confederate Civil War monument, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, set out his views on the asylum system, asylum seekers, and immigration attorneys.

Jeff Sessions speaks to an audience at the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

Sad to say, Mr. Sessions described the asylum system in largely negative terms, and said not a word about the benefits that our country derives from offering asylum.

While he views our asylum policy as “generous,” and designed to “protect those who, through no fault of their own, cannot co-exist in their home country no matter where they go because of persecution based on fundamental things like their religion or nationality,” Mr. Sessions feels that our generosity is being “abused” and that “smart attorneys have exploited loopholes in the law, court rulings, and lack of resources to substantially undermine the intent of Congress.”

Mr. Sessions also lambasts “dirty immigration lawyers who are encouraging their otherwise unlawfully present clients to make false claims of asylum providing them with the magic words needed to trigger the credible fear process.”

Indeed, Mr. Sessions believes that our asylum system is “subject to rampant abuse and fraud.” Because the system is “overloaded with fake claims, it cannot deal effectively with just claims.”

First, it’s quite sad that our nation’s chief law enforcement officer would have such a jaundiced view of asylum. The idea that asylum is merely a generous benefit we offer to refugees, and that we receive nothing in return, is simply false. I’ve written about this point before, but it bears repeating. Asylum was created during the Cold War as a tool against the Soviet Union. We offered refuge to people fleeing Communism, and each person who defected to the West served as a testament to our system’s superiority over our adversary.

Now that the Cold War has ended, asylum still serves our strategic interests. It demonstrates our commitment to those who support and work for the values we believe in. It is tangible evidence that America stands with our friends. It gives our allies confidence that we will not let them down when times become tough. It shows that our foundational principles–free speech, religious liberty, equality, rule of law–are not empty words, but are ideals we actually stand behind.

And of course, there are the asylees themselves, who contribute to our country with their energy, enthusiasm, and patriotism, often born of their experience living in places that are not safe, and that are not free.

None of this came up during Mr. Sessions’s talk. Perhaps he does not know how our nation has benefited from the asylum system. Or maybe he doesn’t care. Or–what I suspect–he views asylum seekers as a threat to our security and a challenge to our country’s (Christian and Caucasian) culture.

The shame of it is that Mr. Sessions is demonstrably wrong on several points, and so possibly he reached his conclusions about asylum based on incorrect information.

The most obvious error is his claims that “dirty immigration lawyers… are encouraging their otherwise unlawfully present clients to make false claims of asylum providing them with the magic words needed to trigger the credible fear process.” Aliens who are “unlawfully present” in the U.S. are not subject to the credible fear process. That process is generally reserved for aliens arriving at the border who ask for asylum. Such applicants undergo a credible fear interview, which is an initial evaluation of eligibility for asylum. While this may be a technical point, Mr. Sessions raised the issue in a talk to EOIR, and so his audience presumably understands how the system works. That Mr. Sessions would make such a basic mistake in a speech to people who know better, demonstrates his ignorance of the subject matter (or at least the ignorance of his speech writers), and casts doubt on his over-all understanding of the asylum system.

Mr. Sessions also says that our asylum system is “overloaded with fake claims.” But how does he know this? And what exactly is a fake claim? In recent years, something like 40 to 50% of asylum cases have been granted. Are all those adjudicators being fooled? And what about denied cases? Are they all worthy of denial? There is, of course, anecdotal evidence of fraud—and in his talk, Mr. Sessions cites a few examples of “dirty” attorneys and applicants. But a few anecdotes does not compel a conclusion that the entire system is “subject to rampant abuse and fraud.” I can point to anecdotes as well. I’ve seen cases granted that I suspected were false, but I’ve also seen cases denied that were pretty clearly grant-worthy. While I do think we need to remain vigilant for fraud, I have not seen evidence to support the type of wide-spread fraud referenced by the Attorney General.

Finally, Mr. Sessions opines that “smart attorneys have exploited loopholes in the law, court rulings, and lack of resources to substantially undermine the intent of Congress.” So court rulings undermine the intent of Congress? Any attorney who makes such a statement casts doubt on that lawyer’s competence and devotion to the rule of law, but when the Attorney General says it, we have real cause for concern. Thousands of federal court rulings—including from the U.S. Supreme Court—have interpreted our nation’s immigration laws (and all our other laws too). That is what courts do, and that is how the intent of Congress is interpreted and implemented in real-world situations. Attorneys who rely on court decisions are not “exploit[ing] loopholes in the law,” we are following the law.

These are all pretty basic points, and it strikes me that when it comes to asylum, Mr. Sessions doesn’t get it. He seems not to understand the role of Congress, the courts, and lawyers in the asylum process. And he certainly doesn’t understand the benefits our country receives from the asylum system.

I’ve often said that President Trump’s maliciousness is tempered by his incompetence. With Attorney General Sessions, it is the opposite: His maliciousness is exacerbated by his incompetence. And I fear that asylum seekers–and our country’s devotion to the rule of law–will suffer because of it.

 

Continue reading

131 Comments

Evaluating the Threat Posed by Refugees

by Jason Dzubow

Last month, a Somali refugee and college student drove his car into a crowd at his university, jumped out, and started stabbing people. He was quickly shot dead by a campus police officer. The assailant, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, apparently left Somalia, lived for a time in Pakistan, and was resettled as a refugee in the United States in 2014. After the incident, Donald Trump tweeted that Mr. Artan “should not have been in our country.”

TV shows based on misunderstandings are hilarious; government policies, not so much.
TV shows based on misunderstandings are hilarious; government policies, not so much.

Incidents like this–where a refugee or asylee commits a (probable) terrorist act–are exceedingly rare. As far as I know, the only other successful attack involving “refugees” was the Boston Marathon bombing, perpetrated by two brothers who came to the U.S. as derivatives of their parents’ asylum case. Since 2001, the U.S. has admitted approximately 785,000 refugees and roughly 400,000 asylum seekers. So if all these numbers are accurate (a big “if”, as discussed below), then the odds that any given refugee or asylee is a terrorist is 1 in 395,000 or 0.0000844%.

In looking at the question of refugees/asylees and terrorism, the main problem is that the numbers listed above are not accurate. First, there is no consistent way to count people entering and leaving the United States. The refugee numbers are probably more accurate (though it’s unclear to me whether all aliens admitted for humanitarian reasons are included in the count), but asylum numbers are all over the map. Part of the problem is that different agencies (DHS and DOJ) deal with asylum applicants, and they seem to count people differently–sometimes derivative asylees are counted; other times, only the principal is counted. How do the agencies count people whose cases are pending? What about people granted other forms of relief (like Withholding of Removal or Torture Convention relief)? How are family members who “follow to join” the principal applicant counted? I have no idea about any of this, and there is no easily available data source to help. Not surprisingly, the dearth of data has opened the door to conspiracy theorists and anti-immigration advocates who claim we have an “open borders” immigration policy. But the absence of data also creates problems for fair-minded policy makers. How can we make appropriate decisions when we do not have a decent understanding of what is going on?

A second problem is that we do not have reliable information about how many non-citizens are involved in terrorist activities. Last summer, Senators Jeff Sessions (Donald Trump’s current nominee for Attorney General) and Ted Cruz sent a letter to the Obama Administration claiming that at least 380 of 580 people convicted of terrorism charges in the U.S. between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2014 are foreign born. According to the Senators, “Of the 380 foreign-born, at least 24 were initially admitted to the United States as refugees, and at least 33 had overstayed their visas.” The letter further claims that since early 2014, 131 individuals have been “implicated” in terrorist activities. Of those, “at least 16 were initially admitted to the United States as refugees, and at least 17… are the natural-born citizen children of immigrants.” Using these numbers and the (admittedly questionable) refugee and asylee numbers listed above, the odds that any given refugee or asylee is involved in terrorist activities is still pretty low: One refugee/asyee out of every 28,902 will be involved in terrorist activities (or about 0.0035% of refugees/asylees).

The Senators were only able to come up with their figures based on publicly-available sources (like news articles), since DHS did not release immigration information about the 580 individuals convicted of terrorist-related activities, or the 131 people “implicated” in such activities. Whether DHS’s failure to release this information is prosaic (perhaps confidentiality or technical issues pose a challenge) or nefarious, we do not know, since apparently, the agency has not responded to the Senators’ requests. The fact is, Senators Sessions and Cruz are correct: We need more data about the people who are entering our country, and we need to know whether refugees and asylees (and others) are committing crimes or becoming involved with terrorism. Not only will this better allow us to make appropriate policy decisions, but it will also help prevent the type of fake news that is currently filling—and exploiting—the information gap.

But of course, the situation is more complex than any statistics alone might show. Some people who become involved in terrorism are mentally ill individuals exploited by terrorists (or–sometimes–by over-zealous law-enforcement officers). In other cases, people providing support to a “terrorist” group overseas do not know that the group is involved in harmful activities, or they do not understand that the U.S government views the group as dangerous. Also, as I have discussed previously, the “material support” provisions of our anti-terrorism legislation are extremely broad, and so people who seem far removed from terrorit activities can get caught up by our overly-broad laws.

Nevertheless, we need to know more about foreign-born individuals–including asylum seekers and refugees–who are implicated in terrorist-related activities, and the basic starting point for any such analysis is the statistical data about who is coming here, how they are getting here, and whether they are accused or convicted of crimes or terrorist-related activities.

Assuming we do get some accurate data, the question then becomes, How do we evaluate such information? How do we balance concrete examples of non-citizens engaged in criminal or terrorist activities, on the one hand, with the benefits of our refugee program, on the other?

And by the way, despite what some anti-refugee advocates might argue, our refugee and asylum programs provide concrete benefits: They establish us as a world leader in the humanitarian realm, they demonstrate our fealty to those who have stood with us and who support our values (and thus encourage others to continue standing with us), they provide our country with diverse and energetic new residents who are grateful for our generosity and who contribute to our society. These programs also represent an expression of who we are as a people. As I have frequently argued, for us to abandon these programs–and the humanitarian ideals that they represent–due to our fear of terrorism is a victory for the terrorists.

But we also need to balance our humanitarian policies and our national security. We need to better understand the issues–so that the public can be more well-informed and so policy makers have the information they need to make good decisions. I hope the new Administration will shine some light on these issues, so that any changes to our refugee and asylum policies are based on accurate information, and not on conjecture or fear.

Continue reading

84 Comments