Some Asylum Seekers Will Qualify for a Stimulus Payment

by Jason Dzubow

In response to the economic disaster caused by the coronavirus pandemic, Congress has passed a $2.2 trillion aid package. Part of that package includes direct payments to individuals. Most U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents will receive a payment, but what about asylum seekers and asylees?

First, for all potential beneficiaries, the payment is dependent on your income. From the Washington Post—

Individuals with adjusted gross incomes up to $75,000 a year will be eligible for the full $1,200 check. Reduced checks will go out to individuals making up to $99,000 a year (the payment amount falls by $5 for every $100 in income above $75,000).

Married couples are eligible for a $2,400 check as long as their adjusted gross income is under $150,000 a year. Reduced checks, on a sliding scale, will go out to married couples who earn up to $198,000. Married couples also will receive an additional $500 for every child under 17.

People who file as a “head of household” (typically single parents with children) are eligible for a $1,200 check if they have an adjusted gross income up to $112,500 a year. Reduced checks on a sliding scale are available for heads of household earning up to $136,500 annually. Heads of household will also receive an additional $500 per child under 17.

You can calculate how much you and your family will receive here.

“Imagine how much TP I could buy with $1,200.00!”

Second, assuming you qualify for the payment based on your income, you must also have a valid Social Security number. For married couples, it seems that both spouses must have SSNs. According to the Tax Policy Center, “If one spouse has an SSN, but the other does not, the couple is ineligible for the payment (there is an exception for military families).”

Third, you would have had to file taxes for 2018 or 2019. If you did not file, you are ineligible for the payment. However, if you were not required to file taxes in those years, you can now file a “simple tax return” in order to establish your eligibility for the payment (presumably, this means filing the IRS form 1040 or the 1040-SR if you are over 65 years old). For those who should have filed taxes in 2018 or 2019, but failed to file, you can file now and still qualify for the payment. The IRS urges people who file to include direct deposit banking information on their tax return, in order to facilitate the payment.

Also, if you need help with issues related to back taxes and filing, you may be able to get assistance from your local Low Income Tax Clinic (many of which are apparently still operating in some capacity through the pandemic).

Fourth, to qualify for the payment, you must be a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident (i.e., a Green Card holder) (though some LPRs who have spent significant time outside the U.S. might not qualify for the payment). Others who reside lawfully in the U.S., such as asylees and asylum seekers, may also be eligible for the payment, as long as they are not “nonresident aliens,” as defined (in a very confusing manner) by the IRS. According to the Internal Revenue Service—

An alien is any individual who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national. A nonresident alien is an alien who has not passed the green card test or the substantial presence test.

The Green Card Test states that an LPR is considered a resident of the United States for tax purposes (and is thus eligible for the stimulus payment) as long as he or she spent at least one day in the U.S. during the relevant tax year.

The Substantial Presence Test is a little trickier. For that, you need to have at least 31 days in the United States during the current year and 183 days in the U.S. during the three-year period that includes the current year and the two years immediately before that. However, when counting towards the 183 days, days in prior years count for less, according to the following formula—

A. Current year days in United States x 1 =_____days

B. First preceding year days in United States x 1/3 =_____days

C. Second preceding year days in United States x 1/6 =_____days

D. Total Days in United States =_____days (add lines A, B, and C)

If line D equals or exceeds 183 days, you have passed the183-day test.

So for example, let’s say you were physically present in the U.S. for 120 days in each of the years 2017, 2018, and 2019. To determine if you meet the substantial presence test for 2019, count the full 120 days of presence in 2019, 40 days in 2018 (1/3 of 120), and 20 days in 2017 (1/6 of 120). Since the total for the three-year period is 180 days, you are not considered a resident under the substantial presence test for 2019, and would likely not qualify for the stimulus payment. A word of caution here: I am not a tax lawyer (thankfully) and so there may be arguments to make here in order to qualify for the payment. If you do not receive the payment and feel you should have, you may want to seek help from a tax professional.

My sense from all this is that asylees and asylum seekers who have been here and paid taxes in 2018 and/or 2019 will likely qualify for the payment (unless they have spent substantial time outside the U.S., which is rare for such people). Asylum seekers and asylees who have been in the U.S. for a shorter period of time, or who did not have a work permit until recently (or who did not yet get a work permit) will likely not qualify for the payment.

If you do qualify, you should not have to do anything to receive the payment–it should be credited to your account or mailed directly to you. Some people–such as those who did not pay taxes in 2018 or 2019–may need to take action, as discussed above. Also, the IRS has created a webpage to provide updates and information about the stimulus payments. At present, the webpage is pretty sparse, but the IRS says it will be updated with additional information soon.

One final point, asylees and asylum seekers are not subject to the “public charge” rules that went into effect in February. Therefore, receiving this payment (or any other type of assistance, including unemployment benefits or means-tested aid) will have no effect on an asylum case, or on an asylee’s application for a Green Card. For non-asylees, it seems pretty clear that the stimulus payment and unemployment benefits would not impact the public charge analysis. Other types of benefits could create a public charge issue (again, this is for people who are not asylees or asylum seekers). Talk to a lawyer if you are not sure or need help with this.

To say the least, these are difficult times for everyone. But the situation is particularly hard on those who are most vulnerable, including many immigrants and asylum seekers. I hope that the stimulus program will provide help to those most in need, and that we will see better days ahead soon.

Continue reading

157 Comments

The I-730 Process: Bringing Family Members Together

by Jason Dzubow

Winning asylum is becoming harder, but it still happens. One of the great benefits of receiving asylum in the United States is that you can file for certain family members to either come to the United States or–if they are already here but do not have status–obtain their lawful status in our country. The process of filing for a family member can be complicated, but a new resource can help: The I-730 Refugee/Asylee Family Reunification Practice Manual.

The first thing to know about this manual is that it is designed for attorneys and accredited representatives; it is not designed for lay people. In other words, it’s not really designed to assist asylees and refugees themselves. It’s important to understand this, as the manual does include some legal jargon and lots of legal references, which are more easily understood by people with legal training. However, overall, the manual is clear and well-written, and it might also be of use to people who are not represented by attorneys (I fear that the authors might cringe if they read this, but these days, low cost legal help is not easy to find, and for those who cannot secure assistance, the manual could be a real life-saver).

Nothing is better than family reunification. Except family reunification with cake!

The second thing to know about this manual is that it is terrific. It covers all the basics, and provides ideas to assist in many problematic situations. It also doesn’t hurt that it is available for free. So kudos to authors Rebecca R. Schaeffer and Katherine Reynolds, and to the organizations who helped make the manual possible: CLINIC, Church World Service, Elon University, and UNHCR.

In this post, I obviously cannot cover or even summarize the material contained in the family reunification manual. Instead, I want to give an overview of the I-730 process for asylees (as opposed to refugees) and to talk about what to expect when you file an I-730 Asylee Relative Petition for a family member.

First, only spouses and children can benefit from an I-730 petition. For spouses, the marriage must have existed prior to the approval of the asylum application. Also, there are certain restrictions about who is considered a spouse: Proxy marriages and polygamous marriages generally do not count. Children generally include biological children, step-children, adopted children, children born out of wedlock, and even unborn children. The child must have been under 21 at the time the principal’s I-589 was filed. Also, the child must remain unmarried until the I-730 is approved and the child/beneficiary is in the United States. There are exceptions to all these rules–and exceptions to some of the exceptions. The manual covers a number of different situations, but if you are not sure, talk to a lawyer. Aside from spouses and children, no other relatives can benefit from an I-730.

The I-730 cannot be filed until asylum is granted, and it must be filed within two years of the date asylum is approved (again, there are exceptions). A separate I-730 must be filed for each family member.

When we file an I-730 for one of our asylee clients, we generally include proof of asylum status (copy of the approval letter or Immigration Judge’s order), proof of identity (copy of passport or other identity document), evidence of the relationship (copy of marriage certificate or birth certificate), evidence of the beneficiary’s identity (copy of passport), and two passport-style photos of the beneficiary. Depending on the case, evidentiary requirements vary, so talk to a lawyer to be sure.

Beneficiaries who are inside the U.S. will receive an interview at their local USCIS office and, if approved, they will receive asylum status. It is possible to file for a family member who is in the United States even if the person entered the country illegally or overstayed a visa, or if the person has criminal or immigration issues, including people with a final order of removal. However, such cases are complicated, and starting the I-730 process for such a person could cause more harm than good. So if a potential I-730 beneficiary has criminal or immigration issues, it is important to consult with a lawyer before you start the I-730 process.

Where the beneficiary is overseas, USCIS will forward the I-730 (via the National Visa Center) to the appropriate embassy. The embassy will contact the beneficiary about a medical exam and other required evidence (which varies from embassy to embassy), and to schedule an interview. If the case is approved, the beneficiary will receive a travel packet, which acts like a visa and allows her to come to the United States as long as the “visa” is valid. Upon arrival, the person will undergo another inspection at the airport, and–if all goes well–enter the U.S. as an asylee.

As the manual points out, the processing time for an I-730 is not predictable. Most cases where the beneficiary is inside the U.S. take at least a year. Cases where the beneficiary is overseas take longer–a two year wait is not uncommon. In my office, we have seen cases go more quickly, but that is not the norm, especially these days. For cases outside the normal processing time, it is possible to make an inquiry. Pages 57 to 60 of the manual give some helpful advice on that score.

A few final points: For the interview, adult beneficiaries should have some awareness of the principal’s asylum case. Beneficiaries are often not questioned about the principal’s case, but if they are, it is better to know the basics (and if you do not know the answer, don’t guess; say “I don’t know“). Also, any documents not in English that are submitted with the I-730 should include certified English translations. Original documents are generally expected at the interview, so try to make sure the beneficiary has those. Lastly, remember that if a principal asylee becomes a U.S. citizen, or if the relationship ends through death or divorce, and the dependent is still an asylee (as opposed to a lawful permanent resident), the dependent will lose his status (and have to apply for nunc pro tunc asylum). For this reason, it is best for dependents to apply for residency as soon as they are eligible. 

So I guess that is a wrap for 2019. I wanted to end on a positive note–and there is nothing more positive in asylum-land than family reunification. I wish you all a Happy New Year, and I hope to see you in the 2020’s.

Continue reading

255 Comments

A Light in Dark Times

by Jason Dzubow

In the immortal words of Adam Sandler, “It’s time to celebrate Hanukkah!” But what exactly is Hanukkah, and why is it relevant to us today?

About 22 hundred years ago, a Seleucid king occupied Jerusalem, looted the Temple, and outlawed Judaism. The Seleucids had inherited part of Alexander the Great’s empire, and they were culturally Greek or “Hellenized.” It seems the Seleucids were egged on by a group of assimilated Jews who opposed the more traditional Jews of Jerusalem. As a result of the Seleucid invasion and the sacking of their Temple, the Jewish population revolted, led by Judah Maccabee (a/k/a The Hammer) and his family. The Maccabees ultimately liberated Jerusalem and re-dedicated the Temple. But they found that there was only enough oil to light the eternal flame and keep it burning for one day. It would take eight days to get a new supply of oil. The miracle of Hanukkah is that one day of oil lasted for eight days.

Today, we celebrate Hanukkah by lighting a menorah (candelabra) that holds eight candles, plus an additional candle called the shamash, which is used to light the other eight. On the first night, we light one candle, and on each subsequent night of the holiday, we add another candle until the last night, when we light all eight candles plus the shamash. I suppose to keep up with our Christian neighbors, we also give presents on each night of the holiday (growing up, my presents were usually socks or underwear, but these days, standards have improved!). To remember the oil, we also eat food cooked with oil, primarily latkes (potato pancakes) and sufganiyot (donuts).

Technically, this represents an improper use of Hanukkah candles.

There are a few important rules about the Hanukkah candles. For one, they cannot be used for any purpose other than observing the holiday, so we cannot use them as lights for reading, for example. Also, the menorah is meant to be displayed publicly, and is often placed so that it is visible through a window (being careful not to set the curtains on fire, of course). Also, the miracle of Hanukkah is a funny sort-of thing. The Jewish people defeated the powerful Seleucid empire, cleaned up and restored the Temple, and found enough oil to light the flame for one night. The “miracle” that largely defines the holiday is that G-d kept that flame burning for seven extra nights. Of all the events in the Hanukkah story, keeping the flame lit for an extra week doesn’t seem like such a big deal.

Amidst the celebration of Hanukkah and the deluge of presents, we sometimes give short shrift to the story of our ancestors’ struggle for freedom, and certainly the basis of the holiday is not well known outside the Jewish community. But the lessons of Hanukkah are important, and are relevant to our time.

For one thing, there is the fight itself–a rag tag group of warriors defeated a powerful empire. Perhaps this is the less obvious miracle of Hanukkah, as the victory might not have been possible without divine intervention. But even if we attribute the Maccabees’ success to G-d, they still earned their win through tenacity and faith in Jewish values. It reminds me of the old adage from St. Augustine: Pray like everything depends on G-d; act like everything depends on you. The lesson for our own time (and all times) is clear–despite the powerful forces arrayed against us, we must continue to fight for Justice. That is what our ancestors did, and it requires hard work. It also requires faith: Faith in G-d or humanity, or simply faith that right will ultimately defeat might, as long as we stay true to our cause. Put more eloquently, by Rocky Balboa, the patron saint of Philadelphia–

It ain’t about how hard you hit. It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That’s how winning is done!

There is also symbolism in the Hanukkah candles. They provide a light, which reminds us of the eternal flame and the miracle of the oil, of course. But what about the idea that the candle light cannot be used for other activities, like reading? To me, this represents a singularity of purpose. We have to keep our eyes on the prize, as it were. One criticism of the Left is that we tend to lack focus. Go to a rally for immigrant rights and you might see protest signs related to gun control, choice, and gay rights. I get the idea of intersectionality. But I think we need to be better about forming alliances to get things done, even if sometimes those alliances are with people we might otherwise find unpalatable (in typical Jewish fashion, I’ve also argued the other side of this point, but as they say, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds). 

Finally, there is the idea that the menorah should be displayed in a window. This one makes me nervous. I don’t really want passerby to know that I am Jewish. Maybe it’s because I grew up at a time when the Holocaust dominated our religious school curriculum, but the idea of advertising my religion to the whole neighborhood–which may include neo-Nazis for all I know–seems risky, even irresponsible. Here, though, I think the point is that we should not be afraid to state our values publicly. While there may be some risk in doing so, it is important to stand up for what we believe.

We live at a time when many of our leaders encourage us to hate people perceived as different; to hold “the other” in contempt. They want to divide us with lies and turn us away from the better angels of our nature. It’s easy and self-indulgent to hate, especially when we’ve been given permission to do so. Hanukkah reminds us to keep the light of goodness alive inside ourselves, and to show that light to the world. Living the message of Hanukkah is not easy, and it is not always safe. But it is important. And these days, it is a message we need more than ever.

Continue reading

106 Comments

A Doctor’s Mission – and How You Can Help

by Jason Dzubow

Kate Sugarman is a family physician in Washington, DC. Here, she writes about her experience assisting detained asylum seekers who have health problems, and she invites you to join her and Doctors for Camp Closure for a lobby day and march on October 18 and 19, 2019.

In about 2005, I learned that if I can properly document scars of torture for someone who is seeking asylum, it greatly increases the odds of their being granted protection. So began my passion for human rights medicine and working to bring justice to immigrants seeking asylum in the United States. I have interviewed, examined, and written up forensic evaluations for well over 600 immigrants seeking asylum. All of these people have either been granted asylum or their cases are still pending.

Over the past several years, I have also been asked to go into ICE detention centers to document scars of torture for immigrants seeking asylum. Most of these people were detained upon entering the U.S. They have not committed any crimes, and are being held only because they have requested asylum in the United States.

Dr. Sugarman’s prescription for good health: Eat right, exercise, and stay away from ICE.

During the summer of 2018, like many other Americans, I became upset over family separations happening to those arriving at the ports of entry along the Southern border. I reached out to human rights doctors and lawyers and I became aware that many immigrants being detained in ICE facilities were being denied necessary medical care. I started building a medical-legal partnership, in which lawyers who were working with individuals being denied medical care while being held in detention could contact our group of doctors for an assessment of their client’s medical risk as a result of having appropriate care withheld. We then wrote medical letters to ICE to describe our findings, as a means of advocating for detainees to receive the care they needed and deserved. Some of our letters included medical assessments, such as “Denying HIV infected people their HIV pills would result in their getting sick and dying from a treatable illness,” “Denying surgery for a growing and painful inguinal hernia puts a patient in terrible pain and in grave danger,” and “Not treating a patient with a deep osteomyelitis that is now oozing large amounts of pus and giving her a fever will cause her to die from a treatable condition.”

Until a few months ago, more than half of these letters resulted in the person getting released. That is no longer the case, as ICE is now refusing to release asylum seekers, even if they are severely ill. As a result, I am shifting my energies, though I continue to work on behalf of detained immigrants who are being denied health care.

One case I worked on recently was for a man named Yoel, who is seeking asylum from Cuba and whose case was profiled on NPR. His lawyers contacted me because they were hoping I could get him released based on his untreated medical condition. He had been detained in Louisiana. He has a lung mass, which is quite suspicious for lung cancer. Instead of giving him a lung biopsy, which is the standard approach in this situation, ICE kept moving him back and forth from Louisiana to Mississippi. Despite a nationwide outcry from many doctors and members of Congress, he was deported, even though his wife is a U.S. resident living in Florida. Two days later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people arriving at the Southern border to request asylum have to wait in extremely dangerous conditions in Mexico without being allowed to enter the United States.

A few days later, I testified on behalf of a woman seeking asylum. Since she is not being provided appropriate medical care, her neurological degenerative disease is getting worse. The judge spent most of his time grilling me over details that had no relevance at all to what I was trying to tell him. In that case, we are still waiting for a decision and the asylum seeker is still behind bars.

Which leads me to why I joined D4CC – Doctors for Camp Closure. There is no healthy amount of time for any man, woman or child to be behind bars, denied the basics of human health and dignity. Seeking safety and asylum in the United States should not result in inhumane, dangerous incarceration. We have already seen the results with multiple adults and children dying in ICE custody.

Please join us Friday October 18, 2019 as we lobby Congress for the health and safety of immigrants. Our March for Migrants in Washington, DC on Saturday October 19 is open to everyone who shares our concerns. Spread the word and let’s work together to put an end to mass incarceration of people who deserve care, not condemnation.

You can find more information about D4CC and the upcoming events here:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/915776502154354/
Twitter https://twitter.com/Doc4CampClosure
Instagram: @Doctorsforcampclosure
Website: https://d4cc.squarespace.com

Continue reading

115 Comments

President Trump’s Attack on Ilhan Omar Is an Attack on All Naturalized Citizens

by Jason Dzubow

This is a guest post by Katharine Clark, Managing Attorney for Immigration at the Silver Spring, MD office of Ayuda. She has previously worked on citizenship and nationality issues at the U.S. Department of Justice. The views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author, and not necessarily those of any organization, employer, or agency.

On July 14, President Trump tweeted that four members of the House of Representatives – known as “The Squad” – should “go back” to “the crime-infested places from which they came.” The tweet targeted three representatives who were born in the United States, and one naturalized citizen, Rep. Ilhan Omar.

Given Omar’s naturalized status, it’s no accident that Trump and his supporters have settled on her as the long-term focus of their racist ire, chanting “Send her back!” at subsequent rallies beginning on July 17, in reference to Omar alone.

Katharine Clark

Much ink has already, rightly, been spilled about how Trump’s tweets and the crowd’s chants were racist, Islamophobic, detrimental to national rhetoric, and offensive to refugees and naturalized citizens. For example, the LA Times in July focused on how the racialized aspects of Trump’s immigration policies, including his denaturalization task force, are likely to suppress political opposition because these efforts are disproportionately concentrated in jurisdictions where naturalized citizens tend to vote Democratic. Jelani Cobb in the New Yorker explored how Trump’s rhetoric aligns with past efforts in the U.S. to make citizenship provisional for non-whites, U.S.-born and naturalized alike.

These are important points, but I believe there is another, more specific legal action that Trump may be proposing in his ongoing comments about Rep. Omar. He is not just using his tweets to energize his base in advance of the 2020 election. More particularly, I believe Trump and his followers are calling for Rep. Omar to be denaturalized and removed to Somalia.

The Legal Context of “Send Her Back”:

There are two ways to lose United States citizenship. Any U.S. citizen, born in this country or naturalized, can voluntarily renounce citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1481. However, renunciation requires a citizen to follow strict procedures for abandonment (it is also possible to lose citizenship after a conviction for treason or a similar criminal offense).

Unlike renunciation, which is initiated by the citizen, denaturalization is a civil action initiated by the federal government under 8 U.S.C. § 1451. To denaturalize a citizen against his or her wishes, a federal court must find that the citizen’s naturalization was illegally procured or procured by willful misrepresentation of material fact.

If a person willfully misrepresents a material fact on a naturalization application, or on the application for a green card that preceded the naturalization application as required under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c), that misrepresentation can provide a basis for denaturalization many years later. Not only that, the consequences can pass from generation to generation. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(d), children who naturalized through their parents can be denaturalized if their parents are found to have procured their naturalization through willful misrepresentation of a material fact.

History of Denaturalization:

Historically, denaturalization actions have been extraordinarily rare. These cases were primarily instituted against war criminals, such as Nazi concentration camp guards, who hid their crimes when they applied for green cards or citizenship. The New York Times reported that from 2004 to 2016, the Justice Department initiated only 46 denaturalization cases.

Denaturalization cases are not only rare, but also difficult for the government to win. This is true by deliberate judicial design. In denaturalization cases, courts hold the government to a very high burden of proof and do not afford great deference to lower court findings of fact on appellate review. Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665 (1944); United States v. Zajanckauskas, 441 F.3d 32, n.5 (1st Cir. 2006). As the Supreme Court explained, “rights once conferred should not be lightly revoked,” particularly where the right in question is as “precious” as citizenship. Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 125 (1943).

Ultimately, then, denaturalization has long been reserved for people who told serious lies, often about their crimes against humanity, in order to become citizens. In other situations, citizenship has been treated as a settled question once naturalization occurs.

Denaturalization Task Force:

This trend began to shift in 2018, when the Trump administration created a denaturalization task force within United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, to review the A-files of naturalized citizens for previous fraud. In the first few months of its existence, the LA Times reports, the task force referred at least 100 cases to the Justice Department for initiation of a civil action.

In some ways, the administration’s focus on denaturalization is simply one small part of the United States’ long history of failing to respect citizenship rights. This history includes laws denying birthright citizenship to Americans of Chinese descent, and forced “repatriation” of US citizens of Mexican descent during the Great Depression.

However, Trump’s threat to Rep. Omar is also uniquely insidious. If Trump is, indeed, calling for Rep. Omar’s denaturalization, we are witnessing the chief executive of our nation, calling for the denaturalization of a duly elected representative on account of her race, religion, and political opinion. This is, to my knowledge, unprecedented.

Trump’s history of policy-making by tweet demonstrates why this threat is so serious and sinister. In this context, Trump’s tweet can be seen as a directive to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota, to USCIS, and to the Office of Immigration Litigation, to investigate and prosecute Rep. Omar for denaturalization. Ken Cuccinelli’s new role at the helm of USCIS does nothing to reassure me, given his 2008 attempt to repeal birthright citizenship while serving in the Virginia legislature, by calling for a Constitutional convention.

Ilhan Omar:

One’s opinion of Rep. Omar’s politics simply do not matter here. I have never seen her immigration file and I am not her attorney, so I have no specific insight into her case.

What is clear from press reports about her naturalization is that, if there were any problems with her immigration or naturalization, they would have occurred before she was old enough to play any meaningful part in the process. Media reports all indicate that Rep. Omar was born in 1982 in Mogadishu, came to the U.S. in 1992, received asylum in 1995, and naturalized in 2000 as a 17-year-old child.

This means that Trump is explicitly threatening, and implicitly assigning his task force to investigate, the possibility of bringing an extraordinarily rare denaturalization action, historically reserved for war criminals, against a political opponent based on immigration applications filed when she was a child.

If the Administration today threatens to denaturalize duly elected representatives, who have the protections of visibility, it will not only make all naturalized citizens provisional, and second-class under the law. It will also demonstrate the Administration’s full intention to use citizenship – by birth and naturalization alike – as a weapon of political war. If this does not make us concerned for the very foundations of our democracy, then we are not paying attention.

Continue reading

109 Comments

The Art of Migration (and a Bit of Housekeeping)

by Jason Dzubow

An ambitious multi-media exhibit at the Phillip’s Collection in Washington, DC explores the “experiences and perceptions of migration and the current global refugee crisis.” The exhibition, called The Warmth of Other Suns: Stories of Global Displacement, presents the work of 75 historical and contemporary artists “from the United States as well as Algeria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Egypt, Ghana, Iraq, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Syria, Turkey, UK, Vietnam, and more.” Many of the artists are themselves refugees, and this lends power and authenticity to the show.

My office mates and I took a field trip to the Phillip’s to check out the exhibit, which consists of “installations, videos, paintings, and documentary images.” There’s a lot to see, and a lot to read–each artist has a story, and for me at least, learning about that story helped me understand what I was looking at. Most of the art is individually interesting and it would be easy to linger with each piece, but in this case, the sum of the show exceeds its parts. Indeed, the great strength of this exhibit comes from its diversity–diversity in experience, place, and time.

A photo from the exhibit, showing migrants waiting for a plane that never arrives (either that, or it’s a bunch of people boarding Wonder Woman’s jet).

The curators have anchored the show with a display of Jacob Lawrence’s Migration Series: 60 or so paintings depicting the Great Migration of African Americans from the American South to the North. Between about 1920 and 1970, more than six million people moved North to escape poverty and racism (or, more accurately, they moved to escape from severe poverty and racism in the South to somewhat less severe poverty and racism in the North). The Migration Series is a part of the museum’s regular collection, but placing it in the wider context of The Warmth of Other Suns adds to its emotional impact and gives it a sense of universality that is less obvious when it is viewed individually.

Other powerful exhibits include a video installation showing a conversation with elderly Central American parents whose son left for the United States. We hear their perspective of the son’s journey–phone calls from different stops along the road, and then finally nothing. The parents learn later that their son has died on the journey. The devastation of their loss is haunting. The mother can’t even speak about it. She talks about the weather and the coffee harvest instead, and somehow, this is harder to watch than a direct accounting of her son’s demise.

Another room has a floor covered in clothing. On the wall is a large photo of a rough ocean. The clothes are blue, indicative of the sea, and they represent the unnamed and unseen migrants who were lost while crossing the Mediterranean (thousands of migrants die each year on their journeys, many in the Mediterranean Sea). On the wall of this room are three world maps, but by a different artist. This artist commissioned Afghan seamstresses to sew the maps. Each country is represented by its colors or part of its national flag. The maps–with their distinct borders between countries–contrasts with the scattered clothing, lost in the liminal space between nations.

Another exhibit is a video of a young boy from Syria. He is deaf and mute, and he looks to be about 12 or 13 years old. He fled Syria after the Islamic State attacked his home town. Unable to speak, the boy describes the attack with gestures and facial expressions. The artist writes, “The power of his body language [has] made any other language form insufficient and insignificant.” I am not sure about that, but his non-verbal description certainly renders any other language form redundant, as it is all too clear that this boy has witnessed and suffered a trauma that no child (and no adult) should ever have to experience.

A more lighthearted exhibit called Centro de Permanenza Temporanea or Center for Temporary Permanence (pictured above) shows a group of migrants climbing an airport boarding ladder for a plane that never arrives. This exhibit symbolizes the inability of Western countries (here, Italy) to return their “unwanted” migrants, who are left to wait and wait.

For me as an attorney who represents asylum seekers, this exhibit was challenging. Our cases are serious and the stakes are high (indeed, just this week, I heard about a colleague’s client who was murdered after having been deported by an Immigration Judge). To do these cases effectively, we need a certain level of detachment (to preserve our sanity) and objectivity (to properly evaluate and prepare our clients’ cases). These qualities serve us well in the practice of asylum law, but they are the opposite of what is needed to appreciate an art exhibit about migration. But by lowering my defenses and engaging with this art, I find that it provides inspiration and serves as a reminder of why we do what we do.

For those who are not immersed in the world of migration, I think the great power of this art is that it gives voice to people who are frequently voiceless, and humanity to people who are too often used as political pawns (“invaders!” “rapists!”). The Warmth of Other Suns is a thoughtful and sobering testament to those who have journeyed–willingly and unwillingly–in search of a better life.

The exhibition runs through September 22, 2019. For more information, and to see some of the art, click here.

PS: The title of this blog post was shamelessly stolen from my friend Sheryl Winarick, who drove across Eurasia to document various communities and their experiences with migration. Learn more about her journey here.

PPS: I almost forgot the housekeeping. I will be off-line from about August 16 to 25, 2019. So if you post questions or comments, I will try to answer them after that time.

Continue reading

131 Comments

Five Asylum Jokes

by Jason Dzubow

(1)

An asylum seeker is tired of waiting for her interview, and so she goes to the Asylum Office to inquire about her case.

Asylum Seeker: I’ve been waiting forever for my case. Can you please tell me when I can expect an interview?

Officer: You’re in luck–we have a new system and we can tell you precisely when your asylum interview will be held. Let me check… Hold on… Ok, I see that your interview will be in exactly two million years.

Asylum Seeker: What?!!? When will my interview be?

Officer: In exactly two million years.

Asylum Seeker: Oh, thank goodness! I thought you said two billion years.

(2)

A Trump supporter stands outside the Immigration Court and waits for an asylum seekers to arrive for his hearing.

Trump Supporter, yelling at the Asylum Seeker: All our troubles come from the asylum seekers!

S.O.L.

Asylum Seeker: That’s right – from the asylum seekers and from the bicycle riders.

Trump Supporter: From the bicycle riders? Why from the bicycle riders?

Asylum Seeker: Why from the asylum seekers?

(3)

Two DHS attorneys board a plane to the Federal Bar Association conference in Memphis. One sits by the window and the other sits in the middle seat.

After a few moments, an asylum attorney sits down in the aisle seat. The asylum attorney makes himself comfortable, takes off his shoes, and leans back in his chair.

Suddenly, the DHS attorney by the window gets up, and states, “I think I’ll get a Coke.”

The asylum attorney in the aisle says, “No worries – I’ll get it for you.” He walks to the back of the plane to get the soda. While he’s gone, the DHS attorney spits into the asylum attorney’s shoe. The two DHS attorneys can barely keep from giggling as the asylum attorney returns to his seat, and hands over the Coke.

The DHS attorney in the middle seat then says, “That looks good. I think I’ll get myself a Coke too.”

Again, the asylum attorney offers to run down the aisle and grab another Coke. While he’s gone, the second DHS attorney spits into the asylum attorney’s other shoe. Once again, the DHS attorneys suppress their laughter just in time, as the asylum attorney returns with a second Coke.

The flights proceeds uneventfully from there, and lands on time in Memphis. On the ground, the asylum attorney slips into his shoes. Immediately, he realizes what’s happened. “How long must this go on?” he asks. “The fighting between our two sides.” “The hatred? The animosity? The spitting in the shoes and the peeing in the Cokes?”

(4)

A Syrian refugee walks into a travel agency in Amman. The agent greets her and asks, “Where to?”

“Where to?” the refugee repeats thoughtfully. “I wish I knew. Let me look at your globe.”

The Syrian refugee slowly spins the globe around, looking carefully at the different continents and countries. After a few minutes, the refugee turns to the travel agent. “Pardon me,” she asks, “but do you have anything else to offer?”

(5)

During the Second World War, after three months of waiting in Casablanca, a Jewish asylum seeker named Lowenthal had almost given up hope of getting a visa for the United States. The U.S. consulate was constantly filled with refugees, and it was virtually impossible even to get an interview with an American official. Finally, Lowenthal was able to make an appointment.

“What are my chances of entering your country?” he asks.

“Not very good, I’m afraid,” said the official. “Your country quota is completely filled. I suggest you come back in ten years.”

“Fine,” replied Lowenthal. “Morning or afternoon?”

Continue reading

119 Comments

On the Morality of Deporting Criminals

by Jason Dzubow

National Public Radio recently reported on the Trump Administration’s efforts to deport Vietnamese refugees with criminal convictions. Currently, Vietnam only accepts deportees who entered the United States after 1995, but the Trump Administration wants to convince Vietnam to accept all of its nationals with removal orders, regardless of when they came to the U.S. If Vietnam agrees, the change could affect more than 7,000 refugees and immigrants, some of whom have been living in the United States for over 40 years. Not surprisingly, negotiations over this issue have stoked severe anxiety in segments of the Vietnamese-American community.

The NPR piece focuses on an Amerasian man named Vu, who was ordered deported due to his 2001 convictions for larceny and assault. The convictions have since been vacated, but the deportation order apparently remains. Amerasians are children of American soldiers and Vietnamese women. They face severe persecution and discrimination in Vietnam, and Vu still fears return to his native land. If Vietnam ultimately agrees to the Trump Administration’s proposal, Vu could be returned to his birth country. “I think about it often and I don’t want to be deported,” Vu says, “I wouldn’t be able to see my children. I would lose everything. I would miss most being around my kids.”

“Seeking forgiveness for old sins? Don’t hold your breath.”

Legally, people like Mr. Vu, who have a removal order, can be deported (assuming their country will accept them, and assuming they cannot come up with a new defense against deportation). But what about morally? When–if ever–is it morally acceptable to deport criminals?

For me at least, this is a difficult question to answer. As a starting point, I must note that it is not easy to apply morality to any aspect of the immigration system. There certainly is a moral component written into the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). For example, to receive asylum and many other immigration benefits, an applicant must show (among other things) that he deserves relief as a matter of discretion. Good people deserve a favorable exercise of discretion; bad people do not. The problem is that, how we define “good” and “bad” bears only a passing relationship to morality, as we might normally imagine it, and so referencing the “moral component” of the INA only gets us so far.

Another problem exists with regard to how the INA delineates gradation of criminal conduct. You would think that the worse your conduct, the more likely you are to be deported, but that ain’t necessarily so. Crimes that might seem more worthy of deportation are sometimes less likely to result in immigration consequences. Put another way, under U.S. immigration law, you might be better off killing your mother than possessing cocaine.

The point is, it is very difficult to understand how morality applies to aliens with criminal convictions, at least when speaking in the abstract. It is easier–at least in my opinion–to approach the problem by looking at a specific case, and working from there. So let’s look at the example of Mr. Vu from the NPR piece.

First off, Mr. Vu’s case is quite sympathetic. His crimes occurred a long time ago, the convictions were vacated, he has U.S.-citizen children, and if deported, he faces persecution. Also, Mr. Vu might argue that his prior crimes were a consequence of his difficult upbringing (and few people have had a more difficult time than Amerasians during the post-war era in Vietnam). In addition, Mr. Vu has been in the United States for a long time, and so perhaps America is more “responsible” than Vietnam for setting him on a criminal path. Finally, as an Amerasian, Mr. Vu would not even exist if the U.S. hadn’t been present in Vietnam, and so this might also constitute a reason that we–and not Vietnam–are responsible for him.

On the other hand, Mr. Vu committed some serious crimes (larceny and assault), which harmed other people. He would likely have been deported in 2001 (per an Immigration Judge’s order), but was able to remain here only because Vietnam was not accepting its nationals for repatriation at that time. Further, as a sovereign nation, we have a right to determine who gets to stay in our country, and Mr. Vu violated that covenant. Worse, Mr. Vu likely came to the U.S. through a program to assist Amerasians. If so, we brought him to our country, only to have him turn around and slap us in the face by committing crimes. Finally, if we give Mr. Vu a pass, won’t that send a signal to other aliens that they can come to our country, commit crimes, and avoid the immigration consequences?

As I see it, there are legitimate reasons to deport Mr. Vu, and legitimate reasons to allow him to stay. Of course, making a moral determination in his case–or any case–hinges on how we balance the competing interests. The all-or-nothing nature of our immigration system compounds the challenge of reaching a fair conclusion: Either Mr. Vu gets deported, or he gets to stay. There is no middle ground.

Though I know where I stand on the case, I am not so sure that there is a correct answer here. Maybe it depends on one’s individual moral code. For what it’s worth, if we could somehow rate criminal-immigration cases, I think Mr. Vu would land on the more sympathetic side of the continuum. So if you believe Mr. Vu should be deported, there are probably few criminal-aliens who you believe deserve to remain in the U.S.

So is it morally right to deport Mr. Vu? Or any person with a criminal conviction?

For me, the answer to these questions is tied to the immigration system in general. I have seen far too many examples where non-citizens and their families are severely harmed for seemingly arbitrary reasons. If we had a more fair, more just, and more rational immigration system, I would have less of a problem with deporting criminals. But given the system that we are stuck with, it is difficult for me to morally justify most deportations. That is doubly true in a case like Mr. Vu’s, where his prior bad behavior has apparently been long overshadowed by his current equities. To deport Mr. Vu and break up his family seems cruel and pointless. But sadly, that is often exactly what we get from our current immigration system.

I hope that the Trump Administration will abandon its plan to remove Vietnamese refugees, especially Amerasians. But if it persists, and if Vietnam agrees, I hope that Mr. Vu–and others like him–will fight to remain here. He has been here for decades, his family is here, and this is his home. Despite his criminal acts, I believe he belongs here. To send him away would be immoral.

Continue reading

144 Comments

The Emotional Toll of Asylum Lawyering

by Jason Dzubow

A recent paper by Neil Graffin, a Lecturer in International Law at the Open University, explores the emotional impact of working as an asylum lawyer. As you might expect, the study found that those of us who represent asylum seekers suffer from burnout and emotional stress. As a “protective mechanism,” we tend to detach ourselves from our clients, and we sometimes become “cynical or disbelieving of client narratives.” More surprising, perhaps, the author found that this “complex reaction” had both positive and negative effects in terms of case outcomes. The paper concludes that “more should be done to protect practitioners working in this area of law,” since “we cannot discharge our duties to asylum claimants, without protecting those who deliver assistance in protecting their rights.”

In researching his paper, Professor Graffin spoke to nine asylum advocates in England and one in the Republic of Ireland. The interviewees had a wide range of experience in the field, from one year to 30 years. Some worked for private firms; others for non-profits.

As we all know, we Yanks tend to be a lot tougher than the wilting flowers in England. Even so, Professor Graffin’s findings largely track with my own experience and that of my colleagues on this side of the pond. So as far as I can tell, the emotional impact of representing asylum seekers is essentially the same for lawyers in the U.S. and for our more fragile British cousins.

It seems to me that Professor Graffin’s findings can be divided into two broad categories: Effects on lawyers caused by dealing with individual clients, and effects caused by “the system.”

Corporate Lawyers

At the individual level, dealing with traumatized asylum applicants is often “emotionally demanding” and “can have a negative emotional impact on practitioners, manifesting in self-reported burnout and emotional stress.” It can also lead practitioners to develop a cynical or disbelieving attitude towards some clients.

This type of skepticism does not necessarily have a negative effect on case outcomes, however. On the contrary, some study participants observed that “having a cynical or disbelieving attitude could make them better practitioners” because it helped them get “into the minds of the ‘suspicious decision-maker’” and “to spot issues of concern in their claimant’s narratives.” From my own perspective, a healthy skepticism towards our clients’ claims is crucial. We need to imagine how our clients’ stories will be received by government decision-makers and anticipate weaknesses in their cases.

Study participants also spoke about the issue of secondary trauma, which comes from “dealing with individuals on a daily basis who have experienced gross and traumatic violations of their human rights.” One common defensive mechanism for practitioners was to distance ourselves from our clients. Too much distance leads to depersonalization, but too little can lead to burnout. The key is balance: We should aim to be “sympathetic but detached.”

Tax Lawyers

In my own practice, I often deal with people who have been traumatized. Some have been physically harmed or threated. Others have lost loved ones. Still others are suffering due to separation from family members. While I am sympathetic to my clients, I don’t believe that the main emotional impact I face relates to these micro-level issues. For me, at least, the bigger stress-inducer is the system itself: Too many cases, not enough time, too much bureaucracy, too little control. Professor Graffin also discusses these and other macro-level issues.

One big issue for me, and for the participants in Professor Graffin’s study, is volume. “Heavy caseloads… were cited as a particular concern amongst participants.” This was an issue for non-profits, which are under increasing pressure to do more with less, and for private practitioners like me, who aim to serve the asylum-seeker community and make a living in the process. “On the one hand, while having a smaller amount of cases was described as economically unviable, having too large a caseload created unmanageable pressure on the firm.”

Another issue involves unfavorable changes to the law. Both Britain and the U.S. (and many other countries) are experiencing an anti-refugee moment. Changes in the law have made it more difficult for us to help our clients. Referencing the “constant downgrading of rights,” one long-term practitioner in Professor Graffin’s study notes that for her, it is “easier to cope with [extremely traumatized clients] than the overall feeling that [she] was being disabled as a lawyer.” I agree. Lawyers are trained to learn the law and help our clients navigate the system. But lately, in the U.S., the government has been throwing up nonsensical bureaucratic barriers that make our jobs more difficult. These barriers are not legal barriers, but rather procedural hurdles. So an application that previously took, say, two hours to complete, now takes three hours. To me, this is a deliberate and arbitrary attempt to reduce immigration by making “the system” harder. I have been reluctant to pass on the costs of the additional work to my clients, as I feel that this would almost make me complicit in the government’s scheme. The problem, however, is that this leads to increased stress for my office mates and me.

Asylum Lawyer

Another job of a lawyer is to explain how the system works. If you file a claim for asylum, for example, there should be a predictable series of events that follows. Now-a-days, there is much less predictability in the system. This is in large part due to these same bureaucratic barriers. It is also due to the general dysfunctionality of the system. The end result, though, is that we lawyers have less power to influence outcomes than we should, and this also increases stress levels.

A final issue discussed in Professor Graffin’s paper is the effect of the over-all hostile environment towards asylum seekers. A number of the participants discussed how “negativity towards asylum claimants within some sections of society had an impact on them.” In an ideal world, human rights would be non-partisan. But of course, our world is far from ideal. The rhetoric in the United States and Great Britain is frequently cruel, and quite often untrue. While I can understand why such an environment can be demoralizing for asylum practitioners, I do not think it affects me that way. If anything, it has energized me to work harder for my clients. It is also one of the reasons we held the Refugee Ball back in 2017.

Finally, I of course agree with Professor Graffin’s recommendation that we provide more support for asylum practitioners, “including training and education in secondary trauma and burnout, as well as the potential for structural re-design to support individuals who hear traumatic narratives on a regular basis.” But the unfortunate fact is that most practitioners—including me—do not have time for additional training, and our current government is not about to take action to make our lives any easier. For now, we just have to keep on keepin’ on.

A few last points that were not directly mentioned in the paper: For me, an important coping mechanism is to have a sense of humor (maybe gallows humor) about the whole system. It is not always easy, but it gets me through the day. It is also nice to know that we asylum lawyers are not alone, and that all of us in the system are struggling with similar issues. So send your good vibes, and we will keep moving forward together.

Continue reading

208 Comments

What a Democratic Majority in the House Means for Asylum Seekers

by Jason Dzubow

When the 116th session of Congress opens on January 3, 2019, the Democrats will control the House of Representatives. Republicans still hold the Senate and, in case you didn’t notice, the Presidency. However, this is an important change from the last two years, when Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress. What will a Democratic House mean for asylum law and policy?

First, let’s talk about changes to the law. Since the time of the Refugee Act of 1980, which established our current asylum framework, there have been relatively few changes to our humanitarian immigration laws. In 1996, Congress amended the definition of “refugee” to include victims of forced abortion and forced sterilization, and in 2005, the REAL ID Act attempted to tighten up the legal requirements for a grant of asylum.

During the first two years of the Trump Administration, when Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency, there have been no amendments to the nation’s immigration laws. Instead, the Administration focused on changing immigration policy based on executive orders–the travel ban, for example. It is curious that the same Republicans who criticized President Obama for his reliance on executive orders (such as DACA), failed to pass any legislation to further their own immigration agenda. Congress and the President could have acted to restrict the law vis-a-vis asylum seekers. For whatever reason, they did not, and now their window is closing. Given the hostility of the President and many Republicans towards asylum seekers, this is probably a good thing.

The beginning of a beautiful friendship. Or not.

Now, with the Democrats in charge of the House, any change in the law would need to be approved by them. This means that a purely punitive immigration reform is very unlikely to pass into law. So while the President can–and probably will–continue to impose hostile policy changes in terms of how the law is implemented, he will be constrained by the existing law. This means that, for the most part, non-citizens who fear persecution will remain eligible to seek and obtain asylum in the United States.

Another way that the Democratic House majority may help asylum seekers is in the area of oversight. With control of the majority comes the ability to issue subpoenas and more carefully oversee government agencies. This is important in the area of immigration, where many agencies–DHS, ICE, CBP, DOJ, EOIR–have engaged in questionable (or worse) practices with impunity.

The most high-profile example of agency malfeasance was the separation of children from their parents at the border. The policy was seemingly enacted as a way to deter asylum seekers, and the best thing you can say about family separation is that it was managed incompetently. Congress has thus far failed to investigate this fiasco, but that could change with Democrats in charge of the House.

Another area where Congressional oversight would benefit asylum seekers is at EOIR, which has been improperly hiring Immigration Judges based on their political leanings. Some of this is publicly known, but much of it has remained below the radar (though those of us in the business hear about it through the grapevine). My guess is that EOIR will be more careful going forward, given that House Democrats could subpoena employment documents to determine whether hiring officials acted improperly. Other agencies within the federal government will likely be similarly constrained.

House Democrats can also exercise oversight to protect the Immigration Judge’s union, which has been working hard to preserve judicial independence and resist the Administration’s efforts to turn their gavels into rubber stamps. I’ve heard rumors about a plan by the Administration to break the union. Whether this is true or not, I do not know, but House Democrats can potentially kibosh any such effort.

A third area where Democratic control of the House could affect asylum seekers is funding. Blocking and detaining immigrants is not cheap. The President’s most high-profile project is the border wall, but immigration enforcement in general is expensive. The Trump Administration has expanded the use of detention, and apparently plans are afoot to continue this trend. House Democrats can exercise some control by denying funding for the President’s more far-fetched projects. They could potentially limit funding for detention, investigate the private prisons where many non-citizens are held, and encourage the use of alternatives to detention. I suppose they could also grind deportations to a halt by reducing funding for Immigration Judges, though I doubt many Democrats are inclined in that direction.

In short, control of the House gives Democrats significant leverage over immigration matters. But it also comes with significant political risks. President Trump has effectively used the immigration issue to motivate his supporters, and if Democrats are seen as checking the President’s agenda, they can expect to be blamed for any real or imagined failures in the immigration realm. How this will translate in terms of votes, I do not know. President Trump and his surrogates raged about the caravan, but if that motivated their base, it was clearly not enough to archive success in the most recent election cycle.

Aside from simply blocking the President’s agenda, Democrats would do well to propose some positive legislation of their own. Of course, any reform would require bi-partisan support, since Republicans control the Senate and the Presidency. Whether such compromise is possible in the current climate, I do not know, especially since the President seems to view immigration in political, rather than policy terms. I expect he will be more-than-happy to let Democrats block his harsher proposals so he can use that to rally his base in 2020. But just maybe, after having lost in 2018, Republicans will conclude that their resistance to immigration reform is doing them more political harm than good. If so, perhaps there might still be a path towards constructive immigration reform.

Continue reading

141 Comments

Fridtjof Nansen, WWI, and the Beginning of the Modern Refugee Regime

by Jason Dzubow

This week–on November 11–marked the 100th anniversary of the Armistice that ended World War I. In terms of refugee law, the Great War is usually eclipsed by WWII, which gave rise to the Refugee Convention (in 1951). The Convention forms the basis for our international and domestic humanitarian law up until today.

But the First World War was also foundational to our current refugee regime, and so it’s too bad that WWI developments in refugee law get short shrift. Upwards of 10 million people were displaced by the War and the subsequent rise of the Soviet Union. Many would never return home and would permanently resettle in other countries. This mass movement of civilians led to political, cultural, and social changes, and predictably, to a backlash against refugees (as a security, economic, and health threat) that sounds all-too familiar today.

Fridtjof Nansen serves meals to orphans in Armenia (apparently, he was also a good cook).

Probably the most prominent figure in post-WWI refugee resettlement was a Norwegian wunderkind named Fridtjof Nansen. Mr. Nansen was born in 1861. He was a record-breaking skater and skier. He studied zoology in university, and went on to become a world famous artic explorer. In 1888, he led the first expedition to cross Greenland, and in 1895, he came within 4 degrees of the North Pole, the furthest north anyone had traveled to date. After his career in the Artic, he turned to science, where he made important contributions to the fields of neurology and oceanography. Mr. Nansen served as a diplomat and advocated for separation of Norway and Sweden (which had been united since 1814). Norway became independent in 1905.

Norway was neutral during the First World War, and during those years, Mr. Nansen was involved in organizing his nation’s defense. In 1917, he was dispatched to Washington, where he negotiated a deal to help alleviate a severe food shortage in his country.

After World War I, Mr. Nansen successfully helped advocate for Norway’s involvement in the League of Nations, and he served as a delegate to that body. He became involved in the repatriation of prisoners of war, and between 1920 and 1922, led the effort to resettle over 400,000 POWs in 30 different countries. In 1921, Mr. Nansen became the League’s High Commissioner for Refugees and helped resettle two million Russians displaced by the revolution. At the same time, he was working to relieve a massive famine in Russia, but had trouble securing international aid (due largely to suspicion of the new Marxist government). He also assisted Armenian refugees after the genocide there, and devised a controversial population exchange between Turkey and Greece, which resolved a Greek refugee crisis, but also resulted in the expulsion (with compensation) of Turks from Greece.

Mr. Nansen created the “Nansen” passports in 1922, a document that allowed stateless people to travel legally across borders. By WWII, 52 nations recognized the passport as a legal travel document. Nansen passports were originally created to help refugees from the Russian civil war, but over 20 years, they were used by more than 450,000 individuals from various countries (including a number of well-known figures, such as Marc Chagall, Aristotle Onassis, G.I. Gurdjiieff, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, and Igor Stravinsky). The passports served as a foundation for a clearly-defined legal status for refugees, and some scholars consider the creation of the Nansen passports as the beginning of international refugee law.

In 1922, Mr. Nansen was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee cited “his work for the repatriation of the prisoners of war, his work for the Russian refugees, his work to bring succour to the millions of Russians afflicted by famine, and finally his present work for the refugees in Asia Minor and Thrace.”

Mr. Nansen continued his involvement in the League of Nations through the 1920s, and he flirted with Norwegian politics, though he seems to have no major ambitions in that direction. In 1926, Mr. Nansen came up with a legal definition for refugees from Russia and Armenia, and his definition was adopted by several dozen nations. This marked the first time that the term “refugee” was defined in international law, and it helped set the stage for later legal developments in the area of refugee protection.

Fridtjof Nansen died on May 3, 1930. After his death, a fellow delegate from the League of Nations eulogized, “Every good cause had his support. He was a fearless peacemaker, a friend of justice, an advocate always for the weak and suffering.”

Even after his death, Mr. Nansen’s work continued. The League of Nations established the Nansen International Office for Refugees, which helped resettle tens of thousands of refugees during the inter-War years. The Nansen Office was also instrumental in establishing the Refugee Convention of 1933 (now, largely forgotten), the first international, multilateral treaty offering legal protection to refugees and granting them certain civic and economic rights. The 1933 Convention also established the principle of “non-refoulement,” the idea that nations cannot return individuals to countries where they face persecution. To this day, non-refoulement is a key concept of international (and U.S.) refugee law. For all this work, the Nansen Office was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1938.

Fridtjof Nansen’s legacy lives on in many ways. There are geographic features named after him in the Artic, Antarctic, and various places around the globe. In space, there is a crater on the moon named in his honor, as well as an asteroid. The oldest ski club in the United States is named for Mr. Nansen, and there is a species of fish that bears his name (Nansenia). A museum in Armenia documents his scientific and humanitarian achievements. And each year, the United Nations bestows the Nansen Refugee Award on an individual or organization that has assisted refugees, displaced or stateless people. For me, though, Mr. Nansen’s most enduring achievement is his pioneering work to help establish international refugee law, a legal regime which protects us all.

Continue reading

97 Comments

Ten Things I Hate About You-SCIS

by Jason Dzubow

Lee Francis Cissna, the Director of USCIS, is building an “invisible wall” to compliment his boss’s “big beautiful wall” along the U.S./Mexico border. The “invisible wall” consists of bureaucratic barriers to prevent people from obtaining immigration benefits in the United States. Ostensibly, the plan is to make America more secure and to protect our country’s workforce. From my perspective, though, much of it seems like gratuitous cruelty, which especially impacts families who don’t have the resources to hire a lawyer.

The bureaucratic changes at USCIS also impact attorneys, increasing our work load and our stress level. It’s now harder to advise our clients, since many USCIS decisions seem arbitrary. While cases are mostly still successful, the environment is decidedly less pleasant. And so without further ado, here are the top ten things I hate about the “new” USCIS:

(1) Asylum Seekers Must Report Arrests on the I-765 Form: The new I-765, a form used to request an employment authorization document (“EAD”), requires that asylum seekers–and only asylum seekers–indicate whether they have ever been arrested. Other EAD applicants, such as people waiting for a green card based on a family or work petition, are not required to report prior arrests. Why are asylum seekers so special? I have no idea, but it’s clear that the current Administration is no fan of asylum, and so perhaps this is another way to punish those who have the temerity to ask our country for protection. What’s wrong with asking about prior arrests? Aside from the arbitrary decision to single out asylum seekers for this additional burden, there are a couple issues: First, many asylum seekers have been arrested back home for their political opinion or religion (hence, they are seeking asylum). USCIS wants documents on all arrests, but it is often impossible to obtain documents for these “illegal” arrests, and this could potentially result in a denied EAD application. Another issue is delay. It takes extra time to process applications if there is more to review. We can expect this new requirement to slow down cases where the person has a prior arrest, and since extra resources will be devoted to such cases, we can expect a ripple effect for all EAD applicants. Finally, the new requirement might necessitate some EAD applicants to hire lawyers, which can be burdensome. And for those with lawyers, the extra work might result in higher fees. At its heart, this is an access to justice issue: In many cases, you receive the justice you can afford, and that is not fair.

A French immigrant is blocked by the invisible wall (and frankly, in this case, I’m good with that).

(2)  Delayed Work Permits After an Asylum Grant: I am not sure how widespread this problem is, but we’ve seen a number of examples lately where a person is granted asylum, and then waits months to receive her new EAD. The delay makes it more difficult to get or keep a job, and it can also block people from receiving a driver’s license.

(3) Disappearing Cases at the Texas Service Center: Most of our office’s affirmative asylum cases are filed at the Texas Service Center (“TSC”). But sometimes, cases are received at the TSC, and then vanish, like dignity from the Oval Office. This happens if the applicant had a prior asylum application, which we did not know about (sometimes, an applicant was a dependent on a prior case and did not know about the case), and it can also happen if we accidentally send an application to the TSC when it should have been sent to a different service center. Why the TSC can’t simply inform us about these errors, or just reject the application, I do not know (though there is an email to contact the TSC, and they recently assisted in one of our cases – Thank you, TSC!).

(4) Rejected Cases at the TSC: The TSC is also notorious for rejecting cases for small, insignificant errors. We once had a case rejected because we did not list the applicant’s siblings. He had no siblings (now, we make sure to write “n/a” in any empty boxes on the I-589). We’ve had instances where we forgot to check a box, and the application was rejected and returned to us. Now-a-days, we triple check the applications in the hope of avoiding such issues, but I imagine for pro se applicants, this is more frequently a problem. The shame of it is, most of these small errors could be resolved at the asylum interview; there is no reason to reject the entire case, causing additional delay and stress.

(5) Refusal to Accept Birth Certificates: Lately, we’ve seen examples of USCIS refusing to accept birth certificates that were not created at the time the person was born (we have not seen this problem for asylum cases, but we have seen it for asylees who are filing for a green card). It is common practice in many countries, that when you need a birth certificate, you request it from the local office. They look it up in a registry, and issue a birth certificate. This used to satisfy USCIS, but no longer. Now they want hospital records, letters from people who knew you when you were born, old school records, and lots of other difficult-to-obtain information about your birth. For me, the best evidence that a person was born is that the person currently exists. Shouldn’t that be enough?

(6) Denial of Advance Parole for Asylum Seekers: To get Advance Parole (“AP”) as an asylum seeker, you must show a “humanitarian” need for the travel. In the past, this was basically a formality. But now, all sorts of evidence seems necessary to obtain AP. In one of our recent cases, the client was seeking AP to visit her mother, who was ill. We submitted a doctor’s letter about the mother’s condition, but USCIS denied AP because the mother was not sick enough (the doctor’s letter indicated that the mother’s condition was “stable”). What was the purpose in blocking our client from visiting her sick mother? To me, this is simply another way to punish people seeking asylum in our country.

(7) Limitations on Advance Parole for Asylum Seekers: We have also seen examples of USCIS issuing AP for very limited periods of time. In one case, we received the approval, but AP was only valid for two days, thus making travel impossible. We try to avoid this outcome by requesting multiple trips, and timing the trips so that USCIS issues the document for a longer period, but what is the harm in issuing AP for one year (or longer)? Why make travel difficult for people who are already enduring difficult circumstances?

(8) The Four-Page Form G-28: Maybe this is a quibble, but why does it take four pieces of paper to enter my appearance as a lawyer using form G-28? All USCIS should need is my name and contact information, the client’s name and information, and space for some signatures. The form used to be two pages, which already seemed too long. Now, every time we enter our appearance, we have to waste four pieces of paper. The G-28 is just one example of USCIS form proliferation. The I-485 went from six pages to 18 pages. The I-130 went from two pages to 12 pages plus another six-page form for marriage cases. The Lorax would not be pleased. Neither am I. Also, of course, longer forms increase costs.

(9) Less Requests for Evidence, More Denials: A new USCIS policy memo makes it easier for the agency to deny cases, instead of issuing requests for evidence (“RFE”). Aliens are paying big bucks for a lot of their applications, and previously, if the applicant made a mistake, USCIS would issue an RFE to allow the person to correct her application. Now, USCIS will deny some such cases. As a result, some aliens will hire lawyers (and endure additional expenses that should have been unnecessary); others may have their cases denied, thus losing their fees and potentially jeopardizing their ability to remain in the U.S.

(10) Slower and More Unpredictable Processing Times: All the changes at USCIS have inevitably affected processing times. Applicants often want to know how long their cases will take, and how long they will have to wait to be reunited with loved ones. These days, processing times have become longer for most applications. Also, processing times have become more unpredictable. For example, if you are applying for a green card in Baltimore, Maryland, the processing time is between 11.5 and 27 months. That’s pretty long, and pretty unpredictable. It’s hard to plan your life in the face of such uncertainty.

I could go on, but I am sure you get the point. USCIS’s “invisible wall” is having its desired effect: It is making it more expensive and more difficult for people to come to the United States. People with fewer resources will suffer the most (as usual), but everyone is affected. Cases are still being approved, but these days, applicants need to be prepared for a more difficult journey to reach their goal.

Continue reading

155 Comments

What Happens When Asylum Is Granted?

by Jason Dzubow

With all the bad news related to refugees and asylum seekers, I thought it might be nice to discuss something positive: What happens when an asylum case is granted?

One of my clients celebrates her asylum grant.

The fact is, despite the best efforts of the Trump Administration, people are still winning their cases. They are winning affirmatively at the Asylum Offices, and defensively in the Immigration Courts. There are some differences between an affirmative and a defensive grant, and we’ll talk about those first.

If an applicant wins at the Asylum Office, she receives a letter indicting that asylum was granted. The date on the letter and the date of the asylum grant are usually not the same. To find the date that asylum was granted, look in the body of the letter on the first page. It will indicate that “asylum was granted on” a certain date. This is the date that matters for purposes of applying for a green card and obtaining certain government benefits.

If asylum is granted in Court, the Immigration Judge will issue an order stating that asylum is granted. If the DHS attorney appeals, the case is not over, and will have to be adjudicated by the Board of Immigration Appeals. But if DHS does not appeal (or if the BIA has already indicated that asylum must be granted), then the case is over and the applicant has asylum. There is one more step that the applicant must take in order to complete the process. The person must bring his approval order and photo ID to USCIS, which will issue an I-94 indicating that the person has asylum, and will also create a new Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”). You can learn about that process here (check the link called post-order instructions).

As soon as asylum is granted, you are eligible to work in the United States, even if you do not have an EAD (see Working in the United States). You can also get an unrestricted Social Security number by contacting the Social Security office.

A person who wins asylum can file an I-730 petition for her spouse and children. To qualify for an I-730, the marriage must have existed prior to the date that asylum was granted. For a child to benefit from an I-730, the child must have been under 21 and unmarried at the time the asylum application was filed. If the child turned 21 before the asylum case was granted, he is still eligible to benefit from the I-730. However, if the child married after the case was filed, he is not eligible to bring his own spouse and children to the U.S. through the I-730 process.

One year after asylum is granted, the alien may file for her lawful permanent residency (“LPR”) (her green card) using form I-485. We used to advise people that they could file for the green card 30 days prior to their one-year asylum anniversary, and this used to work. But then we filed a green card application early, and USCIS rejected it. Since then, we have advised our clients to wait one full year before filing for their residency. Principal asylum applicants do not generally receive a green card interview, but dependents usually do. When you receive the LPR card, it will be back-dated by one year (so if you get the card on May 21, 2018, it will indicate that you have been an LPR since May 21, 2017). You can apply for U.S. citizenship based on the earlier date listed on the card.

A person who wins asylum can obtain a Refugee Travel Document using form I-131. This document is valid for one year and is used in lieu of a passport, but there are some limitations. For example, returning to the country of feared persecution can result in termination of asylum status or lawful permanent residency (I wrote about this here). Also, not every country will accept the RTD as a travel document, so you have to check with the country’s embassy in advance.

People granted asylum may also be eligible for certain government benefits, including referrals for short-term cash and medical assistance, job development, trauma counseling, and English as a Foreign Language services. The Office of Refugee Resettlement has a state-by-state collection of agencies that can help with these and other services (once you identify agencies near you, you have to contact them directly). For those granted asylum affirmatively, the Asylum Office sometimes holds meetings to explain the benefits available to asylum seekers. You would have to ask your local Asylum Office about that. Be aware that after the case is granted, you have a very limited time to access most services, and so the sooner you reach out to provider organizations, the better.

Asylees are eligible to attend university (asylum applicants who have an EAD are also eligible to attend most universities). In many cases, universities offer in-state tuition to people with asylum. There may also be scholarships available. You would have to reach out directly to the university to learn more about tuition discounts and scholarship money.

Asylees also have certain legal obligations. If you are a male asylee (or a dependent) between the ages of 18 and 26, you must register for Selective Service. LPRs and citizens are also required to register. Also, like everyone else, asylees have to pay taxes and follow the law.

Finally, asylees and LPRs must inform USCIS whenever they move to a new address. You are required to do this within 10 days of the move. You can notify USCIS of your new address by mailing them form AR-11 or filing it electronically. Either way, keep evidence that you filed the change of address form.

Especially these days, I view every asylum win not only as a victory for the individual, but also as a victory for our country. Whether our leadership understands it or not, our nation is defined in large part by how we treat those coming to us for refuge. So if you have been granted asylum in the U.S., thank you for still believing in the American Dream–it helps the rest of us keep believing as well. And of course, Welcome to the USA!

Continue reading

425 Comments

Refugees and the Power of Stories

by Jason Dzubow

I’ve written here many times about the difficulties faced by asylum seekers in the United States. But the fact is, asylum seekers and refugees are not powerless. They need not sit passively while politicians and pundits impugn them as “rapists” and “terrorists,” and pretend that America’s problems are caused by “the other.” In fact, asylum seekers have a powerful tool at their disposal to fight back against such accusations: They have their stories.

Refugees have power! (Though maybe this guy is more of a DACA recipient than a refugee).

Talk to any asylum seeker or refugee, and you will hear a great story. It is often a tragic and depressing story, to be sure, but it is always a story about overcoming adversity, about survival, about perseverance. It is, more than anything, an American story. My ancestors fled pogroms in Russia or conscription in the Czar’s army. My wife’s grandfather escaped from a Nazi concentration camp in Austria. Many American families have stories like these.

The clients I talk to every day also have amazing stories: Eritreans who escaped national service (i.e., slavery) by outrunning military guards and then traveling through dozens of countries to reach the United States; Afghans who served shoulder to shoulder with American soldiers and who were then threatened by the Taliban; transgender women from El Salvador who face persecution from their families; journalists from Pakistan who were threatened by the ISI; a gay man from Rwanda who was subject to a bizarre and harmful exorcism ritual; a Chinese whistle-blower who exposed billions of dollars of corruption and then faced threats from powerful businessmen; democratic activists from Egypt imprisoned after the Tahrir Square crackdown; religious converts from Iran who face death for their apostasy. The list goes on and on.

Indeed, people don’t come to America because they’re doing great in their homeland. They come here because they want a better life, and the stories about why they left and how they came here are often riveting.

Here’s my theory: Even people who generally oppose immigration will support the immigrants that they know personally or who they feel a connection to. For example, the only legislative amendment to the legal definition of “refugee” came when pro-life advocates lobbied Congress to make asylum available to victims of forced family planning. Pro-lifers are not necessarily associated with liberal immigration policies, but through this legislation, they greatly expanded the number of people eligible for asylum. On a more interpersonal level, I have a friend who worked for Pat Buchanan, the anti-immigrant firebrand who once challenged President George H.W. Bush for the Republican nomination. My friend’s fishing buddy—an immigrant from West Africa—was arrested for assault and battery against a police officer. My friend referred the case to me, and when we ultimately won, my friend sent me a note: “You did the most important thing a person can do, you made me look good for recommending you.” I love that. The point, of course, is that even a Pat Buchanan supporter was sympathetic to the immigrant he knew personally.

Why should this be the case? Why should people who normally oppose—and even hate—immigrants still support the immigrants they know?

I think the simple truth is that immigrants are no different than anyone else. And for most people, when they hear stories of struggle and survival, and of love and gratitude for America, it’s difficult not to be sympathetic. In other words, if immigrants and their supporters can get people to listen to immigrant’s stories and to meet immigrants in-person, we win.

The difficulty lies in making the connection, and in getting people to listen. How can we do that?

First, I think we need to connect in-person, not through traditional or social media. The problem with the media is that it has become so Balkanized as to be largely useless for bridging ideological divides. In addition, media “interactions” are generally too superficial to change minds. Personal connections are harder to achieve, but they are far more powerful, convincing, and long-lasting.

Second, we need to invite people in and make them comfortable. We should not put them on the defensive. This means engaging them on their turf, not ours. It means listening to people with different points of view, and not judging them. Most people who oppose immigrants and refugees are not bigots and xenophobes. They are not irrational. But in many cases, they do not have all the facts. They do not personally know refugees, and have not heard their stories. We may not be able to change their minds, but at least we can provide them with more information, and give them a more complete picture (a picture, by the way, which is sorely lacking in our partisan media environment).

Finally, we need to accept that some people will not be persuaded, no matter how compelling the story, or how many statistics we cite. We need to respect that decision, and this often requires self-control. It also requires recognizing that it’s not easy for a person to change her views. Sometimes, all you can do is tell your story and accept that there is no perceptible change. Perhaps, though, we can hope that a positive interaction will at least plant a seed in the person’s mind, and maybe that is enough.

So how does this work in practice? If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know that my three favorite words are, I don’t know (in fact, I don’t even know if “I don’t know” counts as three words or four!). But here’s how I would imagine implementing this idea:

Refugees and asylum seekers (and their supporters) would reach out to a church, school or community association, and ask to come tell their stories. The purpose would not be to debate refugee or immigration policy. Instead, it would be to tell a personal narrative and express gratitude for what American has offered. Hopefully, the audience would consist of people with little exposure to non-citizens. Or better yet, an audience that is skeptical of “illegals.” Preferably, the speakers would be proficient in English (and presumably, if you’ve read this far, you are proficient in English). After the story, perhaps there could be a Q&A. And that’s it. It does not have to be political. It does not have to specifically touch on policy. It would just be individuals connecting, telling stories, and listening.

So maybe if you are an asylum seeker or refugee, and you’ve read this far, you would consider reaching out to your neighbors and telling your story. Or if you are a member of a religious or civic group that might benefit from hearing refugee stories, you’d consider contacting a refugee organization for a speaker. In this way, one person at a time, we can change the world for the better.

Continue reading

225 Comments

A Poetic Response to the State of Our Union

by Jason Dzubow

Last night was the State of the Union address, a speech presidents give before Congress each year to assess where our country has been and where we are going. President Trump’s speech highlighted one of his favorite themes–the dangers to our economy and our security posed by non-citizens.

I recently came across a poem by Brian Bilston, which eloquently rebuts the President’s anti-immigrant and anti-refugee talking points, and so I wanted to share it here. If you would like to learn more about Mr. Bilston, check out his website. Without further ado, enjoy–

Refugees

They have no need of our help
So do not tell me
These haggard faces could belong to you or me
Should life have dealt a different hand
We need to see them for who they really are
Chancers and scroungers
Layabouts and loungers
With bombs up their sleeves
Cut-throats and thieves
They are not
Welcome here
We should make them
Go back to where they came from
They cannot
Share our food
Share our homes
Share our countries
Instead let us
Build a wall to keep them out
It is not okay to say
These are people just like us
A place should only belong to those who are born there
Do not be so stupid to think that
The world can be looked at another way
(now read from bottom to top)

Continue reading

106 Comments