Re-Thinking the Master Calendar Hearing in the Time of Coronavirus

by Jason Dzubow

The Master Calendar Hearing–where dozens of people are squeezed into a room and forced to wait for hours in order to talk to a Judge for two minutes–has always been a headache and a waste of time. Now, though, as the coronavirus pandemic continues unabated, attending an MCH seems downright dangerous (lucky for us, we have an associate attorney who covers our MCHs – Don’t forget to wash your hands when (if) you get back!). I’ve written before about alternatives to the MCH, and given the expanding pandemic and the need for social distancing, now seems a good time to re-visit some of these ideas.

Before we get to that, I should mention that MCHs are not the only place where groups of non-citizens are packed together against their will. Far worse are our nation’s ICE detention facilities and private prisons, where conditions were already quite bleak (in the two years before the pandemic, 21 people died in ICE custody). Unfortunately, ICE has not taken effective action to protect detained asylum seekers and other non-citizens from the pandemic (at one facility in Virginia, for example, nearly 75% of detainees tested positive for COVID-19), and the agency seems to have little regard for the health of its detainees (or staff). As a colleague aptly notes, Anne Frank did not die in a gas chamber; she most likely died from typhus, which was epidemic in her detention camp.

Also, it’s worth noting that the National Association of Immigration Judges (the judges’ union) has been working hard for safer conditions in our nation’s Immigration Courts, even if EOIR management has been hostile to some of those efforts. Currently, non-detained MCHs have been suspended, but so far, there is no EOIR-wide policy for what to do instead. Some Immigration Judges and individual courts have made it easier to submit written statements in lieu of MCHs, but the process is still needlessly awkward and time consuming.

MCHs are no more efficient today than they were in olden times.

While we need a short-term fix so that MCHs can go forward during the pandemic, here I want to talk about longer-term solutions. Below are a few ideas for replacing in-person MCHs. While these ideas may not work in all cases, they will help most respondents (and their attorneys) avoid attending MCHs. This would save time and money for people in court, and would also save time and resources for the courts themselves, and for DHS. In addition, reducing the need to appear in person would help prevent the spread of disease. In short, doing away with MCHs is an all around win. So without further ado, here are some ideas to get rid of those pesky Master Calendar Hearings–

e-Master Calendar Hearings: EOIR–the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the office that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts–has been working towards electronic filing for decades, and in some courts, limited online filing is available. Given that the infrastructure is being put into place for online filing, EOIR should create an online MCH. There already exists a system for written MCHs, but this is a huge pain in the neck. It involves a burdensome amount of paperwork, and judges don’t always respond to the documents we file. This means that we lawyers do double work–we submit everything in writing and we have to attend the MCH. Given how unreliable it is, many attorneys (including yours truly) would rather attend the MCH than try to do it in writing.

An effective and reliable e-MCH would be easy to use and efficient. Most cases fit a clear pattern: Admit the allegations, concede the charge(s), indicate the relief sought and language spoken, designate the country of removal, and obtain a date for the Individual Hearing. For attorneys and accredited representatives who are registered with EOIR, this could all easily be accomplished through an online form, thus saving time for all involved.

Orientation Sessions for Unrepresented Respondents: One difficulty during the typical MCH is attending to unrepresented respondents. People who come to court without a lawyer tend to take more time than people who have attorneys. This is because the attorneys (usually) know what is expected at the MCH and are (hopefully) ready to proceed. For people without lawyers, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) needs to explain what is going on, often through an interpreter. All this takes time and seems like busy work for the IJ (who often has to repeat the same litany multiple times during each MCH). Why not provide pre-MCHs with court staff instead of judges? There, unrepresented respondents can received a basic orientation about the process and be encouraged to find a lawyer. These sessions could be organized by language. Respondents who indicate that they will return with a lawyer can be given a deadline by which the lawyer can either submit the necessary information online (if e-MCHs have been implemented) or come to court if need be. Respondents who will not use a lawyer can be given a date to return for an in-person MCH with a judge. Even if e-MCHs are not implemented, having an orientation session would save significant time for judges and would make MCHs more efficient.

Empower DHS: In Immigration Court, the “prosecutor” works for the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). Most DHS attorneys are overwhelmed and overworked. They have little time to review cases in advance or to speak with opposing counsel prior to the MCH or the Individual Hearing. What if there were more DHS attorneys? What if we could pre-try cases, narrow issues, and maybe even hold depositions? If issues could be hashed out ahead of time, we could shorten or eliminate the need for a MCH, and we could make Individual Hearings more efficient.  

All this seems pretty basic. The Immigration Courts are overwhelmed. Reducing or eliminating MCHs will free up judges to do substantive work. It will also save time for DHS, respondents, and their attorneys. And of course, given our new normal with the coronavirus, it will help keep everyone safe. Changes to the MCH system are long overdue, and are especially urgent due to the pandemic. Let’s hope that EOIR can finally rise to the occasion. 

Continue reading

224 Comments

Where’s My Green Card? Where’s My Work Permit?

by Jason Dzubow

What do you think would happen if a client came to my office (virtually), hired me, paid me money to file a case, and then I did not file the case and refused to return the client’s money? Here’s what I think would happen–the client would sue me to get the money back, and I might be dis-barred. Also, I could go to jail.

So what happens when a person hires USCIS to adjudicate an application for a work permit or a Green Card, pays money to the agency, USCIS determines that the person qualifies for the benefit, but then refuses to issue the document? Apparently, nothing happens. The agency keeps the money and the applicant is SOL. That is exactly what we are seeing these days for people approved for an Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”) or a Green Card.

According to a recent article in the Washington Post, “In mid-June, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ contract ended with the company that had been printing [Green Cards and EADs].” “Production was slated to be insourced, but the agency’s financial situation… prompted a hiring freeze that required it to ratchet down printing.” As of early July, about “50,000 green cards and 75,000 other employment authorization documents promised to immigrants haven’t been printed.” These are documents that the applicants paid for and qualified for, and which they need to live and work in the United States.

You may be be surprised to learn that the Trump Administration won’t always give you what you pay for.

The Administration is blaming the problem on the pandemic, which it says has impacted USCIS’s budget. But that is not the whole story. Like many agencies under President Trump, mismanagement and hostility towards the agency’s mission have resulted in budget woes that long precede the coronavirus. According to an article by the Migration Policy Institute, USCIS essentially made a profit from fee receipts every year between FY2008 and FY2018 (data was not available for prior years). But starting in FY2019 (which began on October 1, 2018–well before the pandemic), the agency started running a deficit. The basic reasons are “falling petition rates… and increased spending on vetting and enforcement.” As MPI notes–

Alongside declines in petitions, USCIS has increased spending on detecting immigration-benefit fraud and on vetting applications. Anti-fraud costs more than doubled from FY2016 to FY2020, rising from $177 million to $379 million. Vetting nearly tripled during that period, from $53 million to $149 million. In addition, enhanced vetting appears to be decreasing productivity. USCIS adjudicated 63 percent of its pending and incoming caseload in FY2016. The adjudication rate dropped to 56 percent in FY2019. Over that same period, despite falling application rates, the backlog of pending petitions grew by 1.4 million, to 5.7 million. As a result, processing times for most types of petitions have increased, with some more than doubling.

According to the Washington Post, it’s not likely that USCIS’s budget will recover any time soon–

Presidential executive orders have almost entirely ended issuance of green cards and work-based visas for people applying from outside the country; red tape and bureaucracy have slowed the process for those applying from within U.S. borders. For a while, the agency refused to forward files from one office to another The centers that collect necessary biometric data remain shuttered. These pipeline delays are likely to dramatically reduce the number of green cards ultimately approved and issued this year.

Many employees at USCIS have already received furlough notices, and unless Congress steps in with a $1.2 billion fix, approximately two-thirds of the agency’s employees will be out of work by early next month. And as we’ve seen, the agency’s budget shortfall is already having an effect–more than 125,000 people have not received Green Cards or EADs, even though they paid for, and qualified for those documents (a few documents are still being produced–one of our clients received an EAD last week).

If you are waiting for a Green Card or an EAD, what can you do?

First, for anyone with a delayed card (where the card has already been approved), apparently the USCIS Ombudsman is trying to assist. If you are waiting for an approved Green Card or EAD, the first thing to do is place an online request for case assistance with the Ombudsman. You can do that here. The Ombudsman is “sending weekly spreadsheets to USCIS to verify card requests are in line to be processed.”

For people who have been granted asylum, you are eligible to work even without an EAD (using your asylum approval document or I-94, your Social Security card, and a photo ID).

If you are waiting to receive an approved Green Card, you might try calling USCIS at 800-375-5283 to request an appointment at the local field office. Field offices can place an “I-551” stamp (also called an “ADIT” stamp) in your passport, and this indicates that you are a lawful permanent resident (a Green Card holder). Due to the pandemic, USCIS offices are closed for most in-person appointments, but if you have an “urgent need” for the I-551 stamp, you may be able to obtain an appointment. An example of an urgent need might be that you will lose your job unless you have proof of status. Maybe get a letter from your employer explaining the need, so you will have that when you try to make an appointment, and when you go to the USCIS field office.

If you have a pending asylum case and are waiting to receive an approved EAD, you might also try calling USCIS. You can ask the agency to expedite the card. However, it seems unlikely that they can do so–one USCIS employee states, “Our volume of inquiries [has] spiked concerning cases being approved, but the cards [are] not being produced… A lot [of the inquiries] are expedite requests, and we can’t do anything about it; it’s costing people jobs and undue stress.” Nevertheless, since some EADs are still being issued, perhaps a call is worth a try.

Finally, you might contact your representatives in Congress (in the House and Senate). Ask them to fund USCIS, and remind them that “Congress… must also exercise its constitutional oversight authority to create and boost meaningful accountability, transparency, and productivity within USCIS.” If Congress does not get involved, USCIS will largely shut down in a few weeks. But USCIS does not deserve a blank check. Congress should ensure that the agency uses the money to fulfill its core mission, and that it gives people what they paid for.

Continue reading

201 Comments

The Unbearable Lightness of BIA-ing, Ten Year Anniversary Edition

by Jason Dzubow

Way back in 2010, I did a blog post about the Board of Immigration Appeals, where I complained that the Board issues too few decisions and does not provide enough guidance to Immigration Judges. Ten years later, things are no better. In fact, based on the available data, the Board is publishing even fewer decisions these days than it did back in the late aughts. Here, we’ll take a look at the situation in 2010, and then review where things stand now.

Before we get to that, we have to answer a preliminary question: What is the Board of Immigration Appeals? According to the BIA Practice Manual—

The Board of Immigration Appeals is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws. The Board is responsible for applying the immigration and nationality laws uniformly throughout the United States. Accordingly, the Board has been given nationwide jurisdiction to review the orders of Immigration Judges and certain decisions made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and to provide guidance to the Immigration Judges, DHS, and others, through published decisions. The Board is tasked with resolving the questions before it in a manner that is timely, impartial, and consistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act and regulations, and to provide clear and uniform guidance to Immigration Judges, DHS, and the general public on the proper interpretation and administration of the Immigration and Nationality Act and its implementing regulations.

Having completed their one published decision for the year, some BIA Board Members take a well-earned rest.

In essence, the BIA is supposed to be the Supreme Court of immigration law. But because the Board issues so few published decisions, it is not fulfilling its duties to provide guidance or ensure that laws are applied uniformly throughout the country. This is not a recent problem.

If you look back at the data from a decade ago, you will see that in 2007, the BIA decide a total of 35,394 cases and had 45 published decisions. In 2008, it decided 38,369 cases and published 33 decisions, and in 2009, it decided 33,103 cases and published 34 decisions. This means that for every 1,000 cases the Board decides, it publishes about 1 case. Looked at another way, during 2007, 2008, and 2009, the Board had about 15 Members (judges on the BIA are called Board Members). This means that in its most prolific year (2007), each Board Member would have had to publish three cases. I’m told that publishing a case is a real production, but even so, three cases per year? That seems pretty weak. The not-very-surprising result is that the Board is not providing the guidance that Immigration Judges need, and this contributes to a situation where different adjudicators are interpreting the law in widely inconsistent ways.

Fast forward 10 year and the situation is no better. In FY2016, the Board decided 33,241 cases and in FY2017, it decided 31,820 cases. In each year, the Board published just 27 decisions. In FY2018, the Board decided 29,788 cases and published 38 decisions, and in FY2019, the BIA published 22 decisions (EOIR has not released data about the number of cases adjudicated by the Board in FY2019). Indeed, in 2018 and 2019, the situation is even worse than these numbers suggest. That’s because in 2018, of the 38 published BIA decisions, 15 were actually decided by the Attorney General (meaning only 23 were decided by the BIA). In 2019, the AG published six cases, meaning that the Board itself published a paltry 16 decision, or–given the expanded number of Board Members–less than one published decision per Member.

Let’s digress for one moment to discuss the difference between an Attorney General decision and a BIA decision. The BIA derives its decision-making authority from the Attorney General. This means that the AG has power to decide immigration appeals, but he has given that authority to the specialists on the Board, who presumably know more about immigration law than their boss. However, because decision-making power ultimately comes from the AG, he can “certify” a case to himself and then issue a decision, which has precedential authority over Immigration Judges and over the Board itself. This means that if the Board issues a decision that the AG does not like, he can change it. Prior to the Trump Administration, AGs generally deferred to the Board and rarely certified cases to themselves for decisions. In the last two years of the Obama Administration, for example, the AG issued a total of three published decisions, two in 2015 and one in 2016, as compared to 21 AG decisions in 2018 and 2019 (to be fair, the Trump Administration did not issue any AG decisions in 2017). The main reason for the AG to issue decisions is to more forcefully implement the current Administration’s immigration agenda. Many who work in the field oppose this type of politicization of the immigration law, and organizations such as the National Association of Immigration Judges (the judges’ union) have been pushing for an independent court system.

Aside from politicization of the law, one result of the AG’s more active role in issuing decisions has been to sideline the BIA. I imagine this is not good for morale. Essentially, the “Supreme Court of Immigration Law” has been relegated to deciding unpublished decisions, which contribute little to improving the overall practice of law.

In any event, it has always surprised me how few decisions the BIA publishes. Chapter 1 of the BIA Practice Manual provides: “Decisions selected for publication meet one or more of several criteria, including but not limited to: the resolution of an issue of first impression; alteration, modification, or clarification of an existing rule of law; reaffirmation of an existing rule of law; resolution of a conflict of authority; and discussion of an issue of significant public interest.” Frankly, it is difficult to believe that fewer than one case in one thousand satisfies these criteria. As I wrote in 2010–

Although it might be more work over the short term, if the Board published more frequently, Immigration Judge decisions would become more consistent–creating less work for the BIA over the long term. It would also make life easier for the federal courts of appeals, saving government resources. Finally–and most important from my point of view–it would create more certainty and predictability for immigrants and their families.

All this remains true. But after three years of the Trump Administration appointing Board Members, many of whom are considered hostile to immigrants, perhaps now is not the time to complain about too few published decisions. Maybe. But I still think there exists a desperate need for guidance and consistency, and even the “unfriendly” Board Members are more inclined to follow the law than our current AG. In addition, there are many mundane, non-political issues that simply need deciding (such as this recent BIA decision). Despite the more hostile make-up of the Board, I still believe–as I believed ten years ago–that the BIA should embrace its role as “the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws” and publish more decisions.

Continue reading

94 Comments

Let’s Deny Asylum to Sick People!

by Jason Dzubow

Horace Walpole famously observed that the world is a comedy to those who think, and a tragedy to those who feel. That about sums up my view of the Trump Administration’s immigration policies: They are so ludicrous and so removed from reality that they would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that people are dying. The most recent proposed regulation neatly fits into this dichotomy; it is as absurd as it is harmful.

Using the pandemic as an excuse, the Administration proposes expanding an existing bar–applicable to aliens deemed a “danger to the security of the United States”–to deny asylum to “aliens who potentially risk bringing in deadly infectious disease to, or facilitating its spread within, the United States.” As usual, the main targets of this latest policy are aliens seeking asylum at the Southern border, but other applicants might be effected as well. Also, unlike some of the prior bans, this one specifically targets non-citizens seeking protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. 

Let’s start with the law. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), there are several “bars” to obtaining asylum. These bars prohibit granting asylum to aliens who (1) “ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated” in the persecution of others on account of a protected ground; (2) were convicted of a “particularly serious crime”; (3) committed a “serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States”; (4) are a “danger to the security of the United States”; (5) are involved in terrorist-related activities; or (6) were “firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States.”

Gesundheit! That’s German for “Asylum Denied.”

Do you notice anything about these different bars? Except for number 6, they all involve people doing bad things. While “danger to the security of the United States” could theoretically be interpreted to include sick people, when considered in relation to the other bars, that interpretation doesn’t make a lot of sense. Indeed, there is a principle of statutory construction called ejusdem generis, which basically says that when you have a list that contains a vague term, you should interpret that term consistent with other items on the list. The BIA famously invoked ejusdem generis (and called it a “well-established doctrine”) in Matter of Acosta, when it interpreted the meaning of particular social group. So it seems more than a small stretch for the Trump Administration to define “danger to the security of the United States” in such broad terms, and we can hold out some hope that this provision will be struck down because it violates the INA (and, by the way, the proposed regulation invokes similar logic to try to block people from obtaining Withholding of Removal). 

Assuming the new rule goes into effect, what constitutes a danger to security? According to the proposed regulation, “In determining whether there are reasonable grounds for regarding an alien or a class of aliens as a danger to the security of the United States… the Secretary of Homeland Security may consider whether the alien exhibits symptoms consistent with being afflicted with any contagious or infectious disease or has come into contact with such disease, or whether the alien or class of aliens is coming from a country, or a political subdivision or region of that country, or has embarked at a place, where such disease is prevalent or epidemic.” So if an alien seems sick, or if she traveled through an area that the U.S. government believes contains an epidemic, she will be barred from asylum. Worse, this regulation gives the government the power to bar a “class of aliens” from asylum. Presumably, that would be aliens from a particular country, or who passed through a particular area.

While this rule applies to all asylum seekers, I suspect that if it is implemented, it will mostly affect those who arrive at the border (or an airport) and request protection. Such aliens undergo a credible fear interview (an initial evaluation of asylum eligibility). If the alien “passes” the credible fear interview, he can present his claim to an Immigration Judge, who then grants asylum, some other relief, or orders the person deported. Up until now, the asylum bars did not apply to credible fear interviews. However, under the proposed regulation, an alien subject to a bar would “fail” the credible fear interview and likely be deported. This means that if an alien comes from, or passes through, an area where an epidemic is prevalent, or if she appears sick, her request for protection in the U.S. will be automatically rejected. 

Let’s think about this for a moment. Under this new rule, if a person was imprisoned, beaten and raped due to her political opinion, and then she escapes her country, she will be denied protection in the United States and sent home simply because she traveled through an area that is experiencing an epidemic. Even if she herself is not sick! How nice.

One last element of this proposed regulation that I want to discuss is the rule related to Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. Under the CAT, the U.S. cannot return a person to a country where he will be tortured. There are essentially no exceptions to this rule. But the proposed regulation seeks to change this–

If the alien makes this showing [that he is more likely than not to suffer torture in the home country], then DHS can choose in its discretion to place the alien in [Immigration Court] proceedings… or return the alien to a third country under appropriate standards.

In other words, when the alien arrives at the border to request protection, she must show that it is “more likely than not” that she will be tortured in the home country. This is a very high standard of proof for someone just arriving in the U.S. who likely does not understand the asylum system or have access to a legal counsel. Further, even if the alien somehow manages to demonstrate that she will be tortured in the home country, DHS can simply choose to send her to a third country (and this can happen–the Trump Administration has bullied or convinced Guatemala to accept some asylum seekers). Basically, we get to wash our hand of our responsibility to protect torture survivors.    

The only saving grace here is that this regulation is so poorly thought out that it is susceptible to a court challenge. Also, it seems to me that there is a much easier way to determine whether an asylum seeker is a “danger to the security of the United States” due to disease: Give him a test for that disease. If he is negative, there is no reason to bar him from asylum. If he is positive, maybe–I don’t know, this may sound crazy–help him get better. Treating human beings humanely. Sadly, it’s a novel concept in Trump’s America.

Continue reading

131 Comments

New (and Awful) Restrictions on Work Permits for Asylum Seekers

by Jason Dzubow

Let’s say I give you a million dollars (which I can easily do, given my lucrative earnings as an asylum lawyer). Let’s also say I put that money on the moon. Even though its yours, you can’t get it, and so it won’t do you any good. That’s basically what the Trump Administration is trying to do with asylum. 

Under U.S. law, non-citizens in our country have a right to seek asylum. But that right is meaningless unless applicants have the means to live here during the lengthy asylum process. On August 25, 2020, the Trump Administration plans to implement a new regulation, which denies Employment Authorization Documents (“EADs”) to some asylum applicants and delays the issuance of EADs to everyone else. The pretextual (lawyer-speak for bullshit) reason for the new rule is to prevent fraud. The real reason is to deter people from seeking asylum in the United States. Here, we’ll discuss the major provisions in this new regulation.

The first major change is the waiting period for an EAD. Until now, the regulations allowed asylum seekers to file their EAD application (form I-765) 150 days after their asylum application (form I-589) was received. Processing the I-765 usually took a few months, and so most asylum seekers would have their EAD card in hand within seven or eight months of filing for asylum. Under the new rule, asylum applicants must wait 365 days before filing for their EAD, and then wait a few more months for processing. This means that most applicants probably won’t have their EAD until at least 14 months after submitting the I-589. This new rule seems to apply to everyone who files for an EAD on or after August 25, 2020, even people who filed for asylum before that date. So if you are eligible for the initial EAD prior to August 25, you should file before that date. Otherwise, you will face an additional six months (or more) of delay.

No EAD? No problem. You can live off your trust account until you receive asylum.

The second major change is that people who file for asylum on or after August 25, 2020, and whose asylum application was not filed within one year of arriving in the United States, will be ineligible for an EAD “unless and until the asylum officer or immigration judge determines that the applicant meets an exception for late filing” or unless the applicant is an unaccompanied child. Sine the one-year bar will usually not be adjudicated until the asylum case is adjudicated, this new rule effectively means that people who do not file for asylum within one year of arriving in the country will not get an EAD. Again, this provision applies only to people who file for asylum on or after August 25, 2020. Also, even if you clearly meet an exception to the one-year rule, you would not be eligible for an EAD if you were in the U.S. for more than one year before filing for asylum (examples of people who are ineligible for an EAD include those who have maintained lawful status during their entire stay in the U.S. before filing, and people who decide to seek asylum after circumstances in the home country changed, causing them to fear return).  

Third, applicants who “entered or attempted to enter the United States at a place and time other than lawfully through a U.S. port of entry on or after August 25, 2020” are not eligible for an EAD. There are rare exceptions enumerated in the rule, but for the most part, people who enter the U.S. unlawfully and file for asylum will be barred from obtaining an EAD.

Fourth, it seems that people who move before they get an EAD are considered to have “delayed” their case if the move transfers their case to a different Asylum Office. They thus become ineligible for an EAD (“Delay” includes “A request to transfer a case to a new asylum office or interview location, including when the transfer is based on a new address”). For this reason, you should try not to move out of your Asylum Office’s jurisdiction from the time of filing until you get the EAD (you can see your office’s jurisdiction here).

Also, previously, asylum seekers who were paroled into the United States after “passing” a credible fear interview were eligible for an EAD based on category c-11. The new rule eliminates this basis of EAD eligibility, though such parolees could still apply for asylum and then file for an EAD after the 365-day waiting period.

Other provisions of the new rule basically codify existing practice. For instance, people who cause delay in their asylum cases and people who have criminal issues will likely be denied an EAD. 

The new EAD rules are particularly damaging when considered along side another proposed rule, which would deny asylum to people who work unlawfully and fail to pay taxes. The combined effect of these new regulations will be that asylum seekers are either forced to work illegally, thus jeopardizing their asylum claims, or they are forced to find some way of surviving in the U.S. for 1+ years without the ability to earn money.

On the positive side (and these days, we sorely need positive news), people who have EADs can continue to renew them in two-year increments, even if their asylum case is referred to Immigration Court or if they lose their case in court and appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. 

Given these changes, if you are planning to file for asylum and you entered unlawfully or have a one-year bar issue, you should file before August 25, 2020, when these rules are scheduled to go into effect. Also, if you are planning to seek asylum, you should file your application within one year of arriving in the United States, even if you would qualify for an exception to the one-year bar (again, to be clear, you can still overcome the one-year bar and receive asylum, but you will not receive an EAD while you are waiting for a decision in your case).

One remaining question is whether these new regulations might be blocked by a federal court. I suspect that there will be a court challenge to the rules. If such a challenge succeeds, my guess is that it will succeed on procedural grounds–in other words, that the Trump Administration failed to adequately justify the new rule (this is the basic reason that the Administration’s efforts to end DACA failed). Asylum seekers have no right to an EAD. See INA § 208(d)(2). However, given that it is impossible to obtain asylum unless you have the ability to survive in this country during the pendency of your case, there may be a basis to challenge this new rule. Let’s hope so.

Continue reading

194 Comments