There are different types of benefits available to people seeking asylum and people who have been granted asylum. Here we will discuss certain “benefits” – such as work permits, travel documents, and Green Cards – available to asylum seekers and asylees, and how these benefits can be improved. (more…)
There are currently over 1.2 million cases pending before our nation’s Immigration Courts (how many of these cases involve asylum, we do not know). The average wait time for a case is 849 days. What has caused this large backlog, and what can be done to alleviate the long waits in Immigration Court?
There are a number of reasons for the Immigration Court backlog. As with the Asylum Office, the basic reason is that there are too many cases and not enough Immigration Judges (“IJs”) and support staff. But a significant aggravating factor is what Judge Schmidt calls “aimless docket reshuffling” or ADR, which he defines as “arbitrarily or maliciously moving cases around without actually deciding them.” In other words, different Administrations have different priorities, and when Administrations change (or change their priorities), cases get moved around in ways that do not result in their completion, but do result in significant delay. The Obama Administration was responsible for its share of ADR, but the Trump Administration–with its decision to make every case a priority–has turned ADR into high art. Other aggravating factors include increased resources for enforcement without a commensurate increase for the Immigration Courts and a significant influx of asylum seekers from Central America that began in about 2012. One last factor is EOIR leadership (EOIR is the Executive Office for Immigration Review – the agency that oversees the Immigration Courts), which under the Trump Administration has been composed of partisan loyalists who lack the competencies needed to run a large organization.
Let’s take a break from the doom and gloom associated with the President’s ongoing effort to subvert our democracy and look at something a bit more cheery–A new edition of the book My Trials: Inside America’s Deportation Factories by Paul Grussendorf. Judge Grussendorf’s 35-year career has spanned the gamut in the asylum law field: Immigration attorney, clinical professor, Immigration Judge, Supervisory Asylum Officer, Refugee Officer. His book, styled a “legal memoir,” discusses his time as an advocate and adjudicator and gives an insider’s perspective on our nation’s very dysfunctional immigration system.
While this book is generally targeted at people in the profession, law students, and policy-makers, it would also be useful for asylum seekers themselves. In many respects, Immigration Judges, DHS attorneys (the “prosecutors” in Immigration Court), and Asylum Officers are an inscrutable bunch. What are they thinking about when they interact with applicants and make decisions? How do they relate to each other? What are their outside interests? Judge Grussendorf’s book shines a light on the world behind the façade, and somehow, seeing government adjudicators as human beings is comforting.
That said, the overall picture painted by Judge Grussendorf ain’t pretty. He lays bare an immigration system that is a mess, where many prosecutors are unyielding and out of control, families are ripped apart for no logical reason (other than arbitrary laws that require it), politicians intervene to deny due process and treat immigrants as tools in a partisan game, and where training for judges and DHS attorneys is completely inadequate. The Judge has particular scorn for those DHS attorneys who do not know the law or care about “doing justice,” but who instead simply seek to deport anyone who comes into their crosshairs.
One aspect of the book that held particular interest for me was Judge Grussendorf’s discussions of cases he denied when he was on the bench. Such cases help illustrate how most deportations do nothing to make our country safer or better. Instead, they result in families being separated and good, hard-working people being ripped from their homes. Our harsh and unforgiving immigration laws often prevent judges–including well-meaning judges like the author–from granting relief even when that is clearly the better outcome. Other times, the applicant simply does not qualify for relief. In such cases, Judge Grussendorf did as most judges do: He denied the case and went on with his daily business. On reflection, it is striking that a judge can order someone deported in the afternoon and then go for a pleasant jog in the evening, but that’s the job, and good Immigration Judges can separate their job from their life.
The new edition of My Trials is timely, in that it has come out when Joe Biden is (hopefully) about to take office. While the Democratic Platform laid out a bold agenda, it is unclear whether a President Biden would be able (given Congressional resistance) or willing (given Mr. Biden’s more cautious nature) to pursue that agenda. Judge Grussendorf weighs in with a number of his own ideas for reform–some will require Congressional action; others will not.
One of his proposals that I found interesting was the idea of granting Mexico some type of most favored nation status and essentially legalizing all Mexicans in the United States (except for those with criminal issues). Given that so many Mexican nationals are currently in the Immigration Court system, if this group were legalized, it would go a long way toward relieving the overburdened courts.
Judge Grussendorf also proposes removing asylum cases from the court system and delegating them to “Special Hearing Officers,” which are essentially better trained and better paid Asylum Officers. This would allow asylum cases to be adjudicated in a non-adversarial manner while freeing up the Immigration Courts to deal with other types of removal cases and eliminating the current redundant situation where the same asylum case is heard by both an Asylum Officer and an Immigration Judge.
A final proposal that I’ll mention here is the Judge’s idea to greatly reduce the use of pre-trial detention in immigration cases. This proposal is not unique to Judge Grussendorf. However, his real-world experience adds weight to arguments that the practice is dramatically over-used and illogical, and helps illustrate how devastating incarceration is for the non-citizen and the non-citizen’s family (and on the non-citizen’s ability to prepare for his Immigration Court hearing).
I hope that Judge Grussendorf’s book–and particularly his policy proposals–get some attention as we try to reform our immigration system. It seems like too often in this debate we hear from policy advocates and politicians, but not from people who have worked in the trenches. We need voices like Judge Grussendorf’s as we hopefully enter an era where immigration reform is a possibility.
My Trials sheds needed light on the absurd, cruel, dysfunctional, and unfair American asylum system. We are left with the impression that despite the systematic failures, justice in asylum cases is sometimes accomplished. When that happens, it is because individuals working within the system allow their humanity, decency, and respect for the rule of law to shine through and overcome the institutional barriers designed to prevent qualified applicants from receiving the protection they need and deserve. Judge Grussendorf is to be commended for his book, and for his effort to improve our nation’s asylum system.
In order to win an asylum case, you have to prove that there is a reasonably possibility you will face harm in your home country. To do this, you need evidence. Evidence about any past harm, evidence of threats against you, evidence of country conditions, etc. One piece of evidence that can be helpful is a report from an expert witness. Here, we’ll discuss the different types of expert reports and how they can help your case.
First, let’s briefly examine the difference between a fact witness and an expert witness. A fact witness is someone who knows about some aspect of your case. For example, maybe your cousin saw the police arrest you from a political rally. Your cousin knows about one piece of your story, and she can write a letter explaining what she knows. She is a fact witness. An expert witness usually does not have any first-hand knowledge of your case. Rather, according to the Federal Rules of Evidence, an expert is someone with “with scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge” who can “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” For example, if you are a member of a small ethnic group that is persecuted by your home government, you might find a professor who has studied your group and who can write a report explaining how the government treats members of your ethnic group. The professor is an expert witness.
In terms of admitting expert testimony, the Federal Rules of Evidence are not binding in Immigration Court or at the Asylum Office, but they do provide useful guidance. To be admissible under the Federal Rules, expert testimony must meet three criteria: (1) It must be relevant, meaning it will “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;” (2) The expert witness must be “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education;” and (3) The expert’s testimony must be reliable, in that it “is based upon sufficient facts or data… is the product of reliable principles and methods, and [the expert] witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.” The standard for admitting evidence in immigration proceedings is more liberal: The “sole test for admission of evidence is whether the evidence is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair.” Nevertheless, by following the guidance from the Federal Rules, you can help ensure that any expert testimony is given maximum credence by the fact finder.
Expert testimony is usually submitted in writing, in the form of an expert report. Accompanying the report is the expert’s CV or a statement of qualifications. It is also helpful to list instances where the expert has previously been recognized as an expert witness by other courts. Experts witnesses sometimes come to court to testify (or testify by telephone).
Expert testimony can be used to support different aspects of an asylum claim. Probably the most common expert report we use is a forensic medical or dental exam. In these reports, the doctor or dentist examines an asylum applicant’s injury to determine whether that injury is consistent with the applicant’s description of what happened. For example, we once had a client who was stabbed in the arm by members of the Taliban. He had a large scar running the length of his forearm. Of course, no medical expert can determine whether the injury was caused by the Taliban. But the expert can opine about whether the scar is consistent with a knife wound. Some experts can also discuss the approximate age of a scar based on its appearance. To create a report, the client would normally need to appear for an in-person examination and give a written description of the incident to the doctor. For this reason, we try to complete the client’s affidavit (or at least the relevant portion of the affidavit) before he goes to see the doctor. That way, he has a description of the incident to bring with him to the exam.
A subset of the forensic medical exams is an evaluation of female genital mutilation/cutting (“FGM/C”). Victims of FGM/C are often able to obtain asylum, and such exams are crucial to these cases. The World Health Organization has categorized FGM/C, and it is helpful for the doctor to explain what category the client’s FGM/C fits into.
Another common type of report that we see are mental health evaluations. These are created by psychologists or other mental health professionals to evaluate the psychological harm (such as post traumatic stress disorder) caused by persecution or the threat of persecution. Sometimes, these reports are generated during the course of treatment; other times, the client visits the mental health professional one or two times and obtains an evaluation for purposes of the asylum case. I tend to prefer the reports created by a treating professional, but in many cases, asylum applicants do not have access to health insurance and cannot afford treatment. In such cases, it may be possible to obtain a pro bono evaluation, which the client can use to bolster her asylum claim. We also use these reports to try to expedite asylum cases. For example, if the report indicates that the applicant’s mental health is being harmed by the long wait, we can sometimes convince the Asylum Office or the court to expedite the person’s case.
Country condition experts can also assist with asylum cases. In my own practice, I use such experts only rarely, as most of the information we need can be found on-line in human rights reports or news articles. However, in specialized situations, a country condition expert can be critical. For instance, an expert can help establish that a person belongs to a particular social group by showing that the society in question recognizes that social group as a distinct entity. Another example is where an expert is needed to interpret a foreign law, such as whether an adoption is legally valid.
In short, there are many ways that experts can help bolster an asylum case. A good starting point for identifying experts and utilizing them effectively is the asylum expert handbook created by Professor Deborah M. Weissman and her students at UNC Chapel Hill Law School. Other helpful resources include the expert data base at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at UC Hastings Law School and the country condition expert list from the Rights in Exile Programme. Some experts on these lists work pro bono; others charge a fee.
Not all asylum cases need testimony from an expert witness (indeed, most of my own cases do not), but where it is needed, it can make the difference between a denial and a grant.
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.
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.
This article is by Aldis Petriceks of Harvard Medical School, Erin Shortell of Harvard Law School, and Dr. Francis X. Shen, JD, PhD. Executive Director, Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Law, Brain, and Behavior; Instructor in Psychology, Harvard Medical School; Senior Fellow in Law and Applied Neuroscience, Harvard Law School Petrie-Flom Center.
The success of an asylum claim relies, to a large degree, on the perceived credibility of an asylum seeker’s memory. The Real ID Act of 2005 states that “[t]he testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee” (emphasis added). Asylum officers and immigration judges are told, in a sense, to act as mind readers, subjectively deciding whether or not to believe the narratives of asylum seekers.
But how do judges and asylum officers assess credibility? Additional evidence, such as physical signs of abuse or country-level evidence of systematic torture, can bolster credibility in this context. But such evidence may not be available, and even if it is, credibility assessments still turn on asylum adjudicators’ subjective perceptions of asylum seekers’ memories.
Credibility determinations thus often rest on the consistency (or lack thereof) in an asylum seeker’s story. The REAL ID Act provides that “ … a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on … the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements … , the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record … , and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.”
Asylum applicants will often recount their stories at multiple points in the legal journey, including immediately upon entry into the U.S.; in a subsequent written affidavit; and before an asylum officer or immigration judge. If inconsistencies or inaccuracies emerge, the asylum adjudicator often infers that the asylum seeker intends to deliberately mislead him or her.
There is, of course, a logic to this inference. If the story changes, one might reasonably infer that the storyteller is purposely crafting a narrative more favorable to a preferred legal outcome.
Intuition is important, but decades of research into the neuroscience of memory suggest that such intuitions need to be carefully examined. Research conclusively shows that memory is not a digital recording of our lives, and thus changes in asylum seekers’ narratives over time may not be due to deliberate deception but rather to the nature of human memory itself.
Autobiographical memories are not accessed as one might re-watch a scene from a movie. Rather, memories are “dynamically reconstructed mental representations,” and they change every time they are retrieved and recounted.
Memory scientists typically talk about three phases of a memory: Encoding (when the sensory systems first register the sights, sounds, smells and more of an event); storage (when that memory gets tucked away in the brain for later use); and retrieval (when the memory is consciously recalled). Context affects each of these stages. Of great relevance to asylum seekers’ credibility is the well-known finding that trauma and stress affect how memories are initially encoded, whether and how they are stored, and how we consciously recall them.
The bottom line for credibility is that inconsistencies in autobiographical recall may not reflect a willful attempt to bend the truth, but rather the biological reality that recalling memories usually involves modification of those memories in ways of which most people are not fully aware.
Do asylum adjudicators take notice of this neuroscience? In theory, they could. The Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations Directorate (“RAIO”) Manual for Officer Training tells officers that it is “[their] job to determine whether those inconsistencies and/or contradictions are due to a lack of credibility or may be explained by other factors.” One of these “other factors” is the basic neurobiology of trauma and memory. But in practice, it is difficult to gauge the extent to which asylum officers abide by this instruction.
What would it mean for asylum adjudicators to better understand the relationship between memory, narrative inconsistency, credibility, and the human brain? To begin, it would entail the realization that many asylum seekers have endured tremendous trauma, and that this trauma often has documented effects on memory. Asylum seekers who have experienced trauma in their home countries, on the way to the U.S., or upon entry into the U.S., are often burdened by these effects. Brain scan research on individuals with PTSD, for instance, finds decreased activity in the brain networks associated with autobiographical memory, and an associated decrease in specific autobiographical recall. Given the prevalence of PTSD among asylum seekers, it is likely that many otherwise credible refugees will fail to describe their journeys, fears, and traumas in a detailed, coherent manner across multiple interviews. This failure, however, does not necessarily indicate a lack of credibility.
Acute stress often interferes with autobiographical memory. People perform more poorly on memory tests after injections of hydrocortisone, a compound which mimics the effects of cortisol on the body. When faced with significant trauma, children often recount memories in a vaguer, less detailed manner, regardless of the presence or extent of primary psychological conditions.
It remains unknown exactly how trauma and memory are related in the brain. Some researchers believe that trauma leads to an over-general mode of autobiographical memory largely because the exclusion of detail might prevent re-traumatization. Others argue that trauma directly alters the activity of certain neurological networks, changing one’s ability to retrieve and recall specific memories. Regardless of the particular theory embraced, however, there is general agreement that people with histories of trauma have more altered capacities to remember specific details of events in their lives, and that those alterations are at least associated with measurable changes in neurological structure, function, and physiology.
So far, this neuroscientific knowledge has not been widely introduced to asylum officers or immigration judges. When these adjudicators determine that an applicant is not credible, “they overwhelmingly rely on inconsistencies within or among the various versions of the applicant’s story.” Can this gap between scientific understanding of memory and legal practice be bridged? At the MGH Center for Law, Brain, and Behavior, we think the answer is yes—with sustained effort and input from multiple disciplines.
Three areas are ripe for exploration. First, attorneys and judges need an improved understanding of how autobiographical memory works. To be sure, memory neuroscience cannot provide an asylum officer or immigration judge with an individualized “credibility detector.” But neuroscience can provide evidence for re-examining default presumptions that tend to equate inconsistency with deliberate falsehood.
Second, scientific articles standing alone are not sufficient to inform legal doctrine and practice. Actionable neuroscience requires the development of materials that can be readily adapted by lawyers to put forth arguments related to neuroscience, memory, trauma, and credibility.
Third, extended dialogue is required to explore both the promise and pitfalls of introducing neuroscience into asylum case law. For instance, might neuroscience memory research allow government lawyers to challenge otherwise consistent recollections? Just as a criminal defense attorney might call a “false memory” expert to aid his or her client’s defense, could similar arguments be made in the asylum context to undercut genuine claims of persecution? These and other concerns must be adequately addressed as part of an on-going law and neuroscience dialogue.
As with any new endeavor, the path for neuroscience and law in asylum cases is not clear. But there is much promise, and we hope there will be much more dialogue in the future.
About the MGH Center for Law, Brain, and Behavior: The Center for Law, Brain, and Behavior works at the vanguard of applied neuroscience, making neuroscience actionable for the legal community in order to ensure just and positive outcomes for all those affected by the law. Though the brain and the law are both complex, our work is quite simple: helping judges, lawyers, case workers, enforcement agents and many other actors across the legal ecosystem determine the right solutions for the right people and cases. We promote and enable the sound application of accurate neuroscience to critical areas of the legal process: criminal trials and sentencing, juvenile justice, elder protection and immigration enforcement and asylum. For more, see clbb.org.
Have an asylum case in Immigration Court and wondering what to do while the courts are closed? My friend David L. Cleveland has a suggestion: Get a copy of your file from the Asylum Office. David is a lawyer in Washington, DC. He has secured asylum or withholding for people from 48 countries. He can be reached at 1949.david@gmail.com.
In most cases, when an asylum applicant has their case denied at the Asylum Office, the case is referred to Immigration Court. There, Immigration Judges sometimes deny asylum because the applicant is deemed incredible. The applicant has told the Asylum Officer one thing, but then tells the Judge something different. There are many examples of Judges being annoyed by inconsistent asylum applicants–
- In a New York case, the applicant was inconsistent concerning the location of children and where she was raped. Kalala v. Barr, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8320 (2nd Cir. 2020).
- in a California case, the applicant was inconsistent concerning the name of a police station. In this case, the Asylum Officer’s notes were shown to applicant for the first time during the Individual Hearing. Sun v. Barr, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5397 (9th Cir. 2020).
- In an Ohio case, the applicant testified to being beaten inside a church. When she asked about how many members of the church were present at the time, she first said 15. Later, she testified that six church members were present. Onoori v. Barr, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21310 (6th Cir. 2019).
More generally, Immigration Judges are very interested in what Asylum Officers do and write. In a case decided in 2019, the phrase “Asylum Officer” is used 32 times. Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2019). In a 2018 case, the phrase “Asylum Officer” is mentioned 57 times, and “notes” (referring to the Officer’s notes from the asylum interview) was mentioned several times. Dai v. Sessions, 884 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2018). In another case, from 2014, an Asylum Officer named “Kuriakose” is mentioned 15 times. Li v. Holder, 745 F.3d 336 (8th Cir. 2014).
In these cases, asylum applicant’s were deemed not credible because their Court testimony was inconsistent with their testimony at the Asylum Office. Most likely, the applicants did not have a record of what they told the Asylum Officer, and of course, since years pass between an asylum interview and an Individual Hearing, it is difficult to remember what transpired at the Asylum Office.
How can I prevent surprise in Immigration Court?
When an Asylum Officer interviews an applicant, the Officer takes detailed notes. Often, these run to 10 pages or more. Later, in consultation with his supervisor, the Officer writes an “Assessment to Refer” or an “Assessment to Grant.” This document is usually three or four pages long. If the case is referred to Court, these notes do not go to the Immigration Judge. However, they are sent to the DHS attorney (the prosecutor), who can review them and look for inconsistencies. At the Individual Hearing, the DHS attorney can use the notes to impeach an applicant’s credibility (“At the asylum interview, you testified that there were 15 people present in the church when you were beaten, but now you say there were only six. Were you lying then, or are you lying now?”).
Asylum Officers sometimes make mistakes or include unexpected information in their notes. They find some sources of information important and ignore other sources. In short, there is a subjective element to these notes that can sometimes work against the applicant and cause surprises in Immigration Court. And, as any attorney will tell you, surprises in Court are usually bad news.
To avoid a surprise in Court, and to find out what the officer wrote, the advocate should make a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request for the notes and the Assessment. Asylum Officer notes are easily available via FOIA. To obtain this information, type your request on a single piece of paper: “Give me the notes and assessment of the asylum officer.” State your name, date of birth, place of birth, address, Alien number, and sign under penalty of perjury. You do not need a lawyer; you do not need Form G-639, although you are allowed to use that form. Send your request via email to: uscis.foia@uscis.dhs.gov
In January 2020, I received the entire Asylum Officer assessment for an asylum applicant from Congo. The client and I are now more relaxed and confident about the case. We will not be surprised in Immigration Court. You can read this assessment at the FOIA page of the Louise Trauma Center. A model FOIA request can also be found at the same page.
The coronavirus is causing unprecedented disruptions to nearly every area of life, and the Immigration Courts are no exception. The courts were already in a post-apocalyptic era, with over one million cases in the backlog, and now the situation has been thrown into near total chaos. The fundamental problem is that EOIR–the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the office that oversees Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals–is determined to continue adjudicating cases, even if that means risking the lives of its own employees; not to mention the lives of respondents, witnesses, and lawyers (and anyone who comes into contact with them).
EOIR is closing and re-opening various courts seemingly at random, often times with an after-hours Tweet, such as one last night at 9:23 PM, declaring that the Newark and Seattle Immigration Courts will reopen today for purposes of accepting filings and litigating detained cases (non-detained cases through April 10, 2020 have been postponed). In reaction to this latest news, Susan G. Roy, an attorney and former Immigration Judge (and my friend from law school – Hi Sue!) wrote last night–
NJ has the second highest number of corona virus cases in the nation, second only to NY. The Newark Immigration Court was closed because someone tested positive for the virus. Now a DHS attorney is fighting for his life in ICU, another attorney is very ill, and an interpreter has tested positive. These are the ones we know about. The Court was set to reopen on April 12. That is a reasonable time to ensure that everyone is safe and that the risk of transmission is limited. How is it even remotely reasonable to decide to open TOMORROW? Even if it is only for filings, court staff and others will be forced to violate the Governor’s Executive Order [directing all residents to stay at home], put themselves at great risk, and risk contaminating others, while many people who work in the same building remain under mandatory quarantine. You are ruthlessly jeopardizing the lives of your own employees, not to mention the public, for no legitimate reason.
And it’s not just advocates who are upset about EOIR’s decision-making. The National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ” – the judges’ union) and ICE attorneys are also reacting with anger. In response to EOIR’s tweet reopening the courts in Seattle and Newark, NAIJ responds, “Putting our lives at risk, one Tweet at a time.” And Fanny Behar-Ostrow, an ICE prosecutor and president of AFGE Local 511, says of EOIR: “It’s like insanity has taken over the agency,“
The gravity of keeping courts open is reflected in one incident, described in a recent letter from the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys in New York–
One of our members recently had a detained master calendar hearing scheduled for this past Friday, March 20, at the Varick St. Court. In order to prepare the bond application and for the master, the attorney and his staff met with the client‘s mother. A request for a bond hearing, together with the required relief applications, and a request for a telephonic hearing, were hand delivered to the Court at noon on Wednesday March 18th, 2020. The attorney did not receive any response to the motion for a telephonic hearing, and repeated calls to the court that day and the next went unanswered. To ensure that the Court was aware of the request, the client‘s mother retrieved from the attorney‘s office, Thursday evening, a letter to the court confirming the request for a telephonic hearing. She traveled to the court in Manhattan, from Long Island, and delivered the letter to the Clerk, and thereafter waited in the waiting area with family members of other detainees and other attorneys who were compelled to appear.
Today we received confirmation the client‘s mother has been diagnosed with COVID–19 virus, through medical testing. Can you imagine the number of people she came into contact with as the result of the decision to keep this court open? In addition to exposing the attorney and office staff, she traveled from her home on Long Island, on the Long Island Railroad, to Penn Station, from there to the subway and ultimately to the Court. Undoubtedly she came into contact with, and exposed, countless numbers of people, who in turn exposed countless others.
Anyone with a basic grasp of the fundamental principles of epidemiology – easily garnered from watching CNN or the local evening news – understands how easily this virus spreads. Given this, the decision to continue to keep the courts open can only be construed as a conscious decision on the part of EOIR to subject our Immigration Judges, court staff, interpreters, DHS attorneys, institutional defenders, members of the private bar, our clients, their families, and all whom they come into contact with, to an unreasonable risk of infection, serious illness and death.
NAIJ echoes this sentiment: “With [New York] the epicenter of the virus, DOJ is failing to protect its employees and the public we serve.”
The appropriate path forward is painfully obvious. EOIR should immediately close all courts for all cases. Staff should work remotely when possible to re-set dates and adjudicate bond decisions (so non-criminal aliens who do not pose a danger to the community can be released from detention). That is the best way to protect everyone involved with the Immigration Court system and the public at large.
Finally, I think it is important to name names. The Director of EOIR is James McHenry. I have never been a fan. Mr. McHenry was profoundly unqualified for his job, having gone from supervising maybe half a dozen people in a prior position to overseeing thousands at EOIR. However, he was politically aligned with the goals of the Trump Administration and he got the job. I have previously described the functioning of the agency during Mr. McHenry’s tenure as maliciousness tempered by incompetence. But these days, it is more like maliciousness exacerbated by incompetence. And in the current crisis, incompetence can be deadly. It’s time for Mr. McHenry and EOIR to do the right thing: Close the courts now.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) recently announced a new way to check case status on-line. The system provides information about cases that are (or were) pending before the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals. According to the EOIR press release–
The automated case information application allows users to receive the most recent information about a case after inputting a unique alien registration number. Available information includes next scheduled hearings, decision information at the immigration court and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) levels, and court and BIA contact information. Immigration courts’ operating statuses are also included.
The new portal can be found here. By entering your Alien number, you can view your case information in English or Spanish. This new system is similar to the old EOIR telephone hotline (which still works–you can call 800-898-7180 to obtain information about your case). The online system provides similar information to the hotline, but in written format.
Overall, I like this online system better than the telephone hotline. It is more convenient and faster to use. It also includes some helpful information that the hotline does not provide, such as better court contact information and news about court closures (at the bottom of the portal home page). That said–and I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth–I do have a few quibbles with this shiny new toy (shocking, I know).
First, and maybe most significantly, when you enter your Alien number and go to the page with information about your case, you will see your full name displayed at the top. This makes me nervous. Maybe I am old fashioned, but I don’t like seeing my asylum-seeker clients’ names displayed for all the world to see (not to mention their A-numbers and information about their cases). I worry that information like this should not be so publicly available.
To be fair, you can’t access this information without the person’s A-number, and when you call the EOIR hotline, you can obtain essentially the same information already. It’s just that having this information available in written format somehow seems less secure. Also, because the online portal is so much faster than the telephone hotline, it’s not difficult to enter one A-number after another and get information about lots of random people. This is particularly easy since A-numbers are assign sequentially. So if you know one person’s number, you can change it slightly and find other (random) people’s names and numbers. Whether this information could be used for nefarious purposes, I do not know, but given the human capacity for mischief, I imagine it is a possibility.
Perhaps a partial solution here is to provide less information about the alien–maybe just the person’s initials. Whether that would provide much protection against bad actors, I am not sure, but it seems safer than displaying the full name. Another possibility would be to require users to enter their Alien number and their name in order to access the system. This would at least make it more difficult to gain access to random people’s information.
A second quibble is that the portal does not distinguish between removal, Withholding of Removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In each case, the decision information will indicate that the person has been denied relief (in contrast, where a person has been granted asylum or a Green Card, the system will indicate that the Immigration Judge “granted the application”). This is the same information that is provided through the telephone system. Having talked to some government techies, I know it is not always possible to obtain more specific information from existing databases, but it would be helpful to know whether a person has been denied all relief or has been granted Withholding or CAT.
A third issue is that the online system does not provide any information about the Asylum Clock. This is surprising, since the telephone hotline does give information about the clock. For some asylum applicants, it is possible to get clock information from USCIS by entering the asylum receipt number (not the Alien number) here. But given this fancy new online system, it’s too bad that clock data is not included as part of the package.
Finally, and this is perhaps an unfair criticism, it seems to me that EOIR could do a lot more with this website. For example, it could include contact information for the relevant DHS office (you can find that separately here). It could indicate whether biometrics are current. Each individual Immigration Court has its own webpage (which you can access here) with information about office hours, staff, parking, and more. It would be nice if the portal provided a link to the relevant court’s webpage. Maybe it could also include links to local pro bono resources and to the Immigration Court Practice Manual. And if we’re really ambitious, it could include information about how to submit a complaint against an adjudicator, other court personnel or an attorney. Dare to dream.
One last point–the new portal is only useful if people know that it exists. Instead of all the mumbo jumbo on the Notice to Appear and the Immigration Court scheduling order, why not include a prominent (and I mean **PROMINENT**) link to the new online system? This new system is not bad (despite my kvetching) and it would be great if more people learn about it.
These days, anything resembling a positive development in immigration world should be celebrated. EOIR’s online portal is a helpful tool for immigrants and their advocates. I hope EOIR will continue to upgrade this system to make it more secure and more useful for us all.
EOIR–the Executive Office for Immigration Review–has proposed a fee increase for applications before the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The new fees purportedly reflect the cost of adjudicating the various applications that EOIR reviews, and include the following–
- Increase the fee for Form EOIR-26 (Notice of Appeal from a Decision of an Immigration Judge) from $110 to $975.
- Increase the fee for Form EOIR-29 (Notice of Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals from a Decision of a DHS Officer) from $110 to $705.
- Increase the fee for Form EOIR-40 (Application for Suspension of Deportation) from $100 to $305.
- Increase the fee for Form EOIR-42A (Application for Cancellation of Removal for Certain Permanent Residents) from $100 to $305.
- Increase the fee for Form EOIR-42B (Application for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain Nonpermanent Residents) from $100 to $360.
- Increase the fee for filing a motion to reopen or reconsider with the immigration court from $110 to $145.
- Increase the fee for filing a motion to reopen or reconsider with the BIA from $110 to $895,
Also, the new fees include a $50 fee for asylum cases filed with the Immigration Court (I wrote about this previously after USCIS proposed a similar fee for asylum cases filed with that agency).
As you can see, the new fees are significantly higher than the current fees. EOIR Director James McHenry justifies the fee increase as follows–
The proposed fee increases are marginal in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars and would mitigate the significant taxpayer subsidization of these forms and motions. EOIR is long past due for a review of its fee-based filings, especially as its caseload and costs have increased substantially since 1986.
As usual, Mr. McHenry’s comments reflect his lack of compassion for vulnerable immigrants, not to mention his tenuous grasp of reality. A 900% fee increase for BIA appeals is certainly not “marginal,” and will likely preclude many people from exercising their right to due process of law. Sadly, though, the rights of immigrants have never been a priority or a concern for Mr. McHenry, at least as far as I can tell, and so his comments are hardly surprising.
Now, to be fair, EOIR has not increased fees for 30 years, and so a review of current fees is overdue, and a reasonable fee increase could certainly be justified. Let’s take, for example, the most impactful of the new fees, the fee to appeal an Immigration Court decision to the BIA. The current fee is $110. According to EOIR, had this fee been adjusted for inflation (starting in 1986), it would be $252.63 in today’s dollars. So in that sense, the current fee is less than it should be (whatever that means). The new proposed fee of $975 is nearly nine times the current fee, but “only” about four times the adjusted-for-inflation fee.
Also, a fee waiver may be available for those who need it, using form EOIR-26A. This form (at least in its current iteration) is fairly simple, and seeks information about the applicant’s income and expenses. It’s not clear how much evidence is needed to support the contentions in the form, but given the wide latitude of adjudicators to grant or deny a fee waiver, it seems to me that the wise applicant will include significant supporting evidence (which may require a lot of work). Pursuant to the regulations, EOIR has the “discretion” to grant a fee waiver. However, the regulations also indicate that, “if the fee waiver request does not establish the inability to pay the required fee, the appeal or motion will not be deemed properly filed.” Does this mean that an appeal filed along with a fee waiver will be rejected if the fee waiver is denied? Will EOIR provide some type of notice, so that applicants can raise the fee and pay for their appeal? How much time will EOIR allow to pay the fee? It’s hard to be optimistic about any of this, given that the whopping new fees seem purposely designed to dissuade applicants from pursuing their rights before the Immigration Courts and the BIA.
Finally, EOIR’s main justification for the new fees is that costs for the agency have increased, and raising fees will help cover EOIR’s expenses and protect tax payers–to the tune of about $45 million per year. To come up with their numbers, EOIR completed a study where they looked at who adjudicates the various applications, how long it takes, and how much it costs (taking into account salaries, but not other expenses such as overhead or employee benefits). How accurate is this study? I have no idea. Different appeals, for example, require very different amounts of work. Some appeals are simple; others are complicated. But even assuming the new fees accurately reflect EOIR’s expenses, I think that fee increases of this magnitude are unfair for two main reasons.
First, EOIR’s justification for these fees is a con job. They talk about the expenses of immigrants, but not the contributions of immigrants to our society. The Trump Administration tried this trick at least once before, when it suppressed a study showing that refugees contribute more to our economy than they take, and instead released a distorted study, listing only the costs of helping refugees. You simply can’t separate out the costs of maintaining an immigration system from the benefits we as a nation derive from that system. Yet that is what EOIR is doing here: Director McHenry decries the expenses to the system, but we learn nothing about how immigrants contribute to our economy (and the weight of the evidence indicates that immigration benefits our economy).
Second, in its mission statement, EOIR indicates that it “is committed to providing fair, expeditious, and uniform application of the nation’s immigration laws in all cases.” How can it fulfill this mission if the people before the Immigration Courts and the BIA cannot afford the relief to which they are entitled? To have a functioning legal system, people in our country need access to courts–civil courts, criminal courts, and immigration courts, among others. Our’s is not (and should not be) a nation where you receive only the justice you can afford. Non-citizens who live in our country should not be an exception to this rule. Or, as the indefatigable Paul Wickham Schmidt writes—
Correcting errors on appeal is probably one of the most important functions the Government performs. That’s particularly true when the public segment “served” is generally limited income individuals and the getting results correct could be “life determining.”
At this stage, the new fees are proposed, but not yet in effect. The public can submit comments about the proposal, and perhaps that will cause EOIR to modify its plan. To submit comments, see page 2 of the proposed rule.
Make no mistake, these proposed fees are another attack on immigrants, justified with half truths, and implemented because immigrants are too vulnerable to fight back. All people of good conscience should continue to resist these terrible policies, which directly impact our non-citizen neighbors, but which, in the end, harm us all.
The latest data on asylum grant rates in Immigration Court is out, and as expected, the news is not great. Overall asylum grant rates in court continued to decline in FY 2019, but the news is not all bad. Courts adjudicated a record number of asylum cases this past year: 67,406, up from 42,224 last year and 19,779 in FY2015. Many cases are still being granted. Indeed, even though grant rates are down, in absolute numbers, more asylum cases are being approved than ever (this is because the total number of asylum cases adjudicated is way up). Also, the percentage of applicants represented by attorneys continues to climb (slowly). Here, we’ll take a look at the newest data and what it means for asylum applicants.
Let’s start with the bad news (so no one can accuse me of being an optimist). In FY2019, 69% of asylum seekers were denied asylum or other relief in Immigration Court. This continues a negative trend that began in FY2012, when the overall denial rate was at an all time low–only about 42% of asylum applicants were denied in that glorious year. Since then, denial rates have been steadily climbing. Last year (FY2018), the overall denial rate was 65%. Despite the general negative trend, if we break down the reasons behind the high denial rate, perhaps we can find a silver lining.
One factor affecting the overall denial rate was the large number of decisions for cases where the applicant was not represented by an attorney. For unrepresented applicants, the denial rate was 84%. Interestingly, unrepresented cases move much more quickly than represented cases: 45.3% of unrepresented cases that started in FY2019 were resolved in FY2019. In contrast, only 9.7% of represented cases that began in FY2019 have been decided. I suspect that many of the unrepresented cases are for detained applicants, as such cases tend to go much faster than non-detained cases (since the government does not like to pay for incarceration). Also, it may be that some unrepresented applicants who are recent arrivals in the U.S. have their cases adjudicated on an expedited basis.
Another major factor affecting denial rates is country of origin. Four of the top five source countries for asylum seekers are El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, and Honduras. Together, these countries represented about 22% of all asylum cases decided in Immigration Court in FY2019. But for various reasons (harsh U.S. laws, difficulty proving nexus), these countries tend to have higher-than-average asylum denial rates–in the range of 80% denials. So if you factor out these four countries, the overall denial rate would be lower (if you are from one of these countries, it is very helpful to talk to a lawyer and think through the most effective way to present your case). You can look up the success rate for people from your country here (this data can be broken down by court, but not by individual judge).
Other factors that contribute to the high denial rate include detained cases and one-year-bar cases, which are both harder to win than non-detained cases and cases filed on time. A final–and unexpected–factor in the high denial rate is the government shut-down of January 2019. During that period, only detained cases were adjudicated, and since such cases are more difficult to win, the denial rate during the shut-down shot up to nearly 75%. This in turn pushed up the overall denial rate for the year.
For asylum seekers who are wondering about the likelihood of success in court, all these variables must be considered. If you are represented by an attorney, if you are not from Central America or Mexico, if you are not detained, and if you file your case on time, the overall asylum denial rate should be significantly better than 69%. So I guess that is good news, sort-of.
But of course, overall denial rates are of little consequence given that grant rates vary by judge (sometimes quite dramatically). To find the name of your Immigration Judge (“IJ”), call 800-898-7180. When the machine answers, follow the instructions and enter your Alien number. You can then press “1” and hear your next court date and–hopefully–the name of your IJ. If your IJ is not listed in the system, it may mean that no one is yet assigned to the case, but you can double check by calling the Immigration Court directly and asking the receptionist whether your case is assigned to a judge. Once you know your judge’s name, you can look here to find asylum denial rates for your particular IJ (for new judges, there may be no data available).
A few points about the individual IJ data: First, it is probably best to look at the most current denial rate (FY2019), since recent (negative) changes in the law may have affected the percentage of cases judges approve. Thus, the older data may be less relevant to a case today. Second, as we discussed, representation rates and country of origin affect overall grant rates. If you scroll to the bottom of the IJ’s page, you can get some idea of the representation rate before that judge, as well as the source countries for asylum seekers that the judge sees. If the IJ adjudicates many unrepresented cases, and/or many cases from Central America and Mexico, this may increase that IJ’s denial rate. Finally, some IJs decide large numbers of detained cases and this would also negatively affect the judge’s grant rate (the data that I see does not list the percentage of detained cases decided by each judge).
Having said all this, I am not sure how useful it is. Unless you move, you have basically no control over who will be your judge. It is better, I think, to focus on what you can control: Gathering evidence and witnesses, preparing your case, and finding a competent attorney. In my experience, most IJs are fair and will listen to your case. The biggest factor in determining whether you win is usually the case itself, and the most productive thing you can do is focus on the variables you can control, and present the strongest case possible.
Finally, I would be remiss not to thank TRAC Immigration for their continued superb work gathering Immigration Court data (often under difficult circumstances). So thank you, TRAC, and keep up the good work.
Way back in the summer of 2015, immigration lawyers started to notice that EOIR was scheduling hundreds, maybe thousands, of Immigration Court cases for a single date: November 29, 2019. Supposedly, this was a holding date, and all those cases would be rescheduled. Now, November 29, 2019 is upon us. As such, I thought it might be nice to re-visit my blog post from back in 2015, when all this seemed a long way off (plus, it being Thanksgiving, I wasn’t much in the mood to write something new). Have things changed since 2015? You bet. But mostly for the worse, as there are now over one million cases in the Immigration Court backlog (in contrast to 2015, when there were about 456,000 cases in the backlog). Anyway, without further ado, here is my blog post from July 1, 2015–
Postcard from the Apocalypse: November 29, 2019
BEGIN TRANSMISSION:
If you’re reading this, maybe there’s still hope. Today is November 30, 2019. Dawn. Yesterday, the world came to an end.
I am one of the few survivors. The very few. And I am sending this transmission back in time by Tachyon beam in a desperate attempt to avert the apocalypse and to save humanity. By my calculation, this message should be received in July 2015. Back then, in your present, it was not too late. Things could have—could still—turn out differently.
What happened? Nuclear war? Environmental degradation? Rapture? No. Such disasters, we could have dealt with. It was something at once more horrifying and more mundane. More innocent, yet more insidious. Small, yet massive. You get the idea.
“What was it, then?!” you plead. Listen well, my friend, and I will tell you the tale of November 29, 2019. On that day, the U.S. Immigration Court system collapsed upon itself, creating a singularity–a black hole, if you will–that absorbed everything in its path: First it took foreigners. No one seemed to mind. Then it took hippies, Libertarians, bachelorettes, and then people who enjoy listening to the Redirect immigration podcast (seriously, though, you should be listening to that). Finally, it took everyone and everything else. Now, all that’s left is me and a few others. We don’t have much time.
It all began innocently enough: Immigration Courts started scheduling a dozen or so aliens for hearings at the same time and place. Didn’t they know that this violates a basic law of physics and, as it turns out, a basic law of Immigration Court—No two aliens can occupy the same hearing space at the same time! Read your Archimedes, people! Isaac Newton! Anybody?
Oh, the powers-that-be at EOIR (the Executive Office for Immigration Review) didn’t think it was a big deal. They were violating the alien’s due process rights, but only a little. And it was for a good cause—efficiency, so what did it matter? But then they got arrogant. Master Calendar Hearings with 40, 50, 60 or more people. Half a dozen respondents on the same transcript, answering charges and conceding removability en masse. Due process protections eroding. But so slowly that no one noticed. The lawyers, the aliens, all of us became complacent. We let it happen.
And then things got worse. In 2014, Immigration Judges started scheduling scores, then hundreds, then thousands of aliens to appear on a single day—November 29, 2019. They claimed this was some sort of “holding” date; that the cases would be rescheduled. Lies! Instead of making the hard journey up Mt. Sinai to seek justice, they worshipped below at the idols of efficiency and budget cuts. Who sows the wind shall reap the whirlwind!
Before anyone really understood what was happening, tens of thousands of immigrants were scheduled to appear in Immigration Court on that fateful day, November 29, 2019 (may it be obliterated from memory). Throughout November, they gathered. They came by themselves or with their families. Small children without parents. Old people. People who had lived in the U.S. for years and people who were fresh off the hovercraft (hovercrafts were very popular in 2019). They filled the Immigration Court waiting rooms and spilled into the hallways. Masses of people, huddled together. Waiting. Soon, the court buildings were full, but still they came.
EOIR saw what was happening. They could have stopped the madness. They could have rescheduled the cases. But they didn’t. Why? Was it a conspiracy that reached to the highest levels of government? Or had some scheduling clerk gone rogue? I suppose we’ll never know, and anyway, it doesn’t much matter.
The more the foreigners gathered, the more they came. It was exponential, logarithmic, seismic. Soon, it wasn’t only people facing deportation. People with TPS started showing up. They were followed by conditional residents who were still married (miracle of miracles). Then there were people with valid visas, still in lawful status: B’s, TN’s, and L’s, Q’s and R’s, H1-B’s and E’s, all varieties of A’s and J’s, and even the odd I or C visa holder. I knew we were in trouble by the time the lawful permanent residents began showing up. And when U.S. citizens started arriving, it was clear that something terrible would happen.
And then it did. The collective gravity of all those people began feeding on itself, swallowing everything and everyone in its path–a black hole. But like I say, if you’re reading this, there’s still hope. There is a simple solution to the Immigration Court backlog. It’s so obvious, that it’s a wonder no one noticed it before. All you have to do is…
ERROR ERROR ERROR END TRANSMISSION
MaryBeth Keller was the Chief Immigration Judge of the United States from September 2016 until July 2019. She was the first woman to hold that position. The Asylumist sat down with her to discuss her career, her tenure as CIJ, and her hope for the future of the Immigration Courts.
Asylumist: Tell us about your career. How did you get to be the Chief Immigration Judge of the United States?
Judge Keller: I was appointed to the position by Attorney General Loretta Lynch in 2016. By that time, I had been at EOIR (the Executive Office for Immigration Review) for 28 years, and had a lot of experience with and knowledge of the entire organization, especially the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (“OCIJ”) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).
After law school at the University of Virginia, I clerked for state court judges in Iowa. I wanted to return to DC, and in those days – the late 1980s – there were a lot of options. I submitted my resume to a federal government database and was selected to interview at the BIA for a staff attorney position (they liked the fact that I had taken an immigration law class with Professor David Martin at UVA). At the interview, I knew it would be an incredible job. The BIA is the highest level administrative body in immigration law, and the people I met seemed happy to be there. I thought I would stay maybe two years and then move on, but I ended up remaining with EOIR for 31 years.
I was at the BIA for about 15 years, nine of those as a manager. In my early days as a staff attorney, I helped revitalize the BIA union, which was basically defunct when I arrived. Some employees had wanted to simply decertify the union, but a colleague and I convinced the majority of attorneys and staff that it could be a useful organization, so they voted to keep it. I was the union president for several years. After I later became a manager, my colleagues joked that my penance for having led the BIA union was to have to deal with the union from the other side. I helped then-Chairman Paul Schmidt revamp and restructure the BIA in the mid-1990s.
From there, I served as EOIR’s General Counsel and was involved with many reforms, including the institution of the first fraud program and a program to address complaints about the conduct of Immigration Judges. This ultimately led to my appointment as the first Assistant Chief Immigration Judge (“ACIJ”) for Conduct and Professionalism (“C&P”). At the time, David Neal was the Chief Immigration Judge, and we built the C&P program from whole cloth. In addition to responsibility for judge conduct, performance, and disciplinary issues, I supervised courts from headquarters and was the management representative to the judges’ union. All of this experience led to me to the position of Chief Judge.
Asylumist: What does the CIJ do? How is that position different from the EOIR Director or General Counsel?
Judge Keller: I view the CIJ’s job as leading the trial level immigration courts to execute the mission of EOIR, including, most importantly, managing the dockets to best deliver due process. In practical terms, this involved hiring and training judges and staff, determining the supervisory structure of the courts, directing the management team of Deputies, ACIJs, and Court Administrators, overseeing the Headquarters team that supports the field, including an administrative office, a business development team, legal advisers, an organizational results unit, and an interpreters unit. The CIJ also collaborates with the other senior executives such as the Chairman of the BIA, the General Counsel, and the Director of Administration to coordinate agency activities on a broader scale. In years past, the CIJ acted as a high-level liaison with counterparts in DHS, the private bar, and other governmental and nongovernmental groups.
The regulations–specifically 8 C.F.R. 1003.9–describe the function of the CIJ. I kept a copy of that regulation on my wall. The regulations set forth the CIJ’s authority to issue operational instructions and policy, provide for training of the immigration judges and other staff, set priorities or time frames for the resolution of cases, and manage the docket of matters to be decided by the immigration judges.
Despite the regulation, under the current Administration, much of the CIJ’s, authority has been assumed by the Director’s Office or the newly created Office of Policy. Court operational instructions, court policy, the provision of training, setting priorities and time frames for case disposition, and many other matters are now being performed by the EOIR Director’s Office, with minimal input from the CIJ and OCIJ management. I do recognize the regulation setting forth the authority of the Director, as well as the fact that the CIJ’s authority is subject to the Director’s supervision. However, reliance on career employees and specifically the career senior executives (Senior Executive Service or SES) at the head of each EOIR component is significantly diminished now. I believe that is compromising the effectiveness of EOIR as a whole. Senior Executives have leadership skills and incredible institutional knowledge and experience that should bridge that gap between policy and operations. They should be a part of developing the direction of the agency and its structure to most effectively accomplish its functions, but are instead largely sidelined and relegated to much more perfunctory tasks. I worry that people with valuable skills will not be satisfied with decreased levels of responsibility, and will leave the agency. This will make it more difficult for EOIR to meet the challenges it is facing.
To answer the question as to how the CIJ position is different from the Director and General Counsel, the EOIR Director manages all the components of the Agency (BIA, OCIJ, Administration, and OGC) and reports to the Deputy Attorney General. The EOIR General Counsel provides legal and other advice to the EOIR component heads and the Director.
Asylumist: What were your goals and accomplishments as CIJ? Is there anything you wanted to do but could not get done?
Judge Keller: I was fortunate to serve as the CIJ at a time of many changes: Hiring an unprecedented number of IJs, finally beginning to implement electronic filing, and creating new ways to effectively complete cases. At the same time, we faced challenges, such as the ever-changing prioritization of certain types of cases, an increased focus on speed of adjudication, and the creation of the new Office of Policy within the agency, which was given far-reaching authority.
Amid these changes, one of my goals was to use my experience at the agency and my credibility to reassure judges and staff that, despite any changes, our mission of delivering fair hearings and fair decisions would remain unchanged. I always told new classes of judges that their primary responsibility was to conduct fair hearings and make fair decisions. Due process is what we do. And if we don’t get that right, we are not fulfilling the mission of the immigration court. I had the sense that my presence as CIJ gave people some level of security that we were holding on to that mission during all of the change.
Another goal was to hire more staff. I thought I would have more control over hiring and court management than I ultimately did. In terms of hiring, while we greatly increased the number of IJs, it is important to remember that IJs cannot function without support staff: Court administrators, legal assistants, clerks, interpreters, and others. The ratio is about 1-5, judges to support staff. Our hope was also to have one law clerk per IJ and we made some major progress in that regard. It might be wiser for EOIR to take a breather from hiring more judges and focus on hiring support staff, because that is imperative for the court to function. Overall, I was not able to prioritize staff hiring as I would have liked, nor was I confident that my office’s input had much impact on hiring decisions.
Aside from hiring many more judges, some of the positive changes we made while I was there included implementing shortened oral decisions–we do not need a 45-page decision in every case. Shorter decisions, where appropriate, are vital to increasing efficiency. We also encouraged more written decisions. It seems counterintuitive, but written decisions can actually be more efficient than oral decisions. If you have the written material available, as well as law clerks, and the administrative time to review the decision, written decisions save the time that would be spent delivering the oral decision and that time can be used for additional hearings. For this purpose, we greatly increased the accessibility of legal resources for both judges and staff through the development of a highly detailed and searchable user-friendly electronic database of caselaw, decisions, and other reference material.
Importantly, we were also working on ways to replace the standard scheduling based on Individual and Master Calendar Hearings. Instead, in a manner more like other courts, we would schedule cases according to the particular needs of the case, including creating, for example, a motions docket, a bond docket, a short-matters docket. Cases would be sent to certain dockets depending on what issues needed to be addressed, and then move through the process as appropriate from there. Different judges might work on one case, depending on what was needed. During the course of this process, many cases would resolve at the earliest possible point, and some would fall out–people leave the country, they obtain other relief, etc. But in the meantime, such cases would not have taken up a normally-allotted four hour Individual Calendar hearing block in the IJ’s schedule. We were looking to do at least three things: Secure a certain trial date at the start of proceedings, allot time judiciously to each matter, and reduce the time between hearings. If the immigration courts could successfully transition to this model, it would improve the timeliness and rate of completion of final decisions.
While I was CIJ, we also looked to see how other courts dealt with issues such as technology. For example, we went to see the electronic systems at the Fairfax County, Virginia court. That system is more advanced than EOIR’s, and it would, for example, allow a judge to give advisals that are simultaneously translated into different languages for different listeners. This would eliminate the time it takes to do individual advisals, without sacrificing the face-to-face time with the judge. We also investigated video remote interpreting, which is having the interpreter in the courtroom via video, so everyone can see and hear each other as if they were in the same place. IT infrastructure to properly support such initiatives is very expensive, but is obviously currently available and used by other court systems. Changes like improving the interpretation system and implementing e-filing and a user friendly electronic processing system would make a profound difference in how the courts operate.
I believe that some of these ideas are still being considered, but the problem is that there does not seem to be much patience for changes that are not a quick fix. I had hoped to move things further than we were able to, but we did make progress as I discussed.
As another example of a positive accomplishment, EOIR is now very effectively using more contractors for administrative support. This was started by Juan Osuna when he was Director of EOIR, and it has been highly successful. Because our growth has been so rapid, contract employees allow us to get top-notch people quickly, and gives us the flexibility to easily replace someone whose performance is not up to speed. Contractors are not a substitute for permanent employees, but can bridge the gap between a vacancy and a new hire. Once contractors have some experience, they can apply for permanent positions and by then, we have good knowledge of their skills and can hire experienced workers.
Finally, a major accomplishment was that I was the first female Chief Immigration Judge. Even though my experience was extensive, I still had to fight to get the job, including nine hours of interviews. At the time, I think I underestimated how much the workplace was still unaccustomed to women in particular positions. The emails I received after I left the job were astounding. Men and women alike wrote to tell me how much it meant to them to have a female CIJ.
Asylumist: How did things at EOIR change between the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration?
Judge Keller: Things now are unlike any time in the past. As I think we have been seeing throughout government during this Administration, the difference seems to be that there is now a fundamental distrust of people and organizations in the federal government. Over three decades, I have worked through a variety of administrations at all points on the political spectrum. Long-time federal employees are very accustomed to altering course when new administrations come in, whether or not the political parties change. Many employees and executives like me welcomed change as an opportunity to move their organizations forward and make the delivery of their services better. But if those in political power do not trust their subordinates and the functions of the agencies they run, it’s a very different and difficult scenario.
Some of the “small p” political pressure was happening by the end of the Obama Administration. For example, we saw this with children’s cases and the instruction we received from Justice Department leaders in political positions to prioritize those cases on our dockets. Still, in that instance, once the political goal was set, the best way to accomplish the goal, and even its ongoing feasibility, was largely left to senior staff in the agency with operational expertise to implement or to ultimately advise superiors that a different course of action might be needed. Now, very often both the political and the operational decisions down to the smallest details are dictated from above. For example, even my emails and communications to staff were edited from above. Aside from the very questionable advisability of having operational determinations made by persons with no operational expertise, this approach subjects the court process to claims that it is not neutrally deciding cases but instead deciding cases in the manner that political leaders would like.
Until recently, I had never really thought very hard about an Article I court for immigration cases. I thought that the line between politics and neutral adjudication was being walked. There was no major concern from my perspective about EOIR managers navigating that line. Now, the level of impact of political decisions is so extraordinary that I wonder whether we do need to remove the immigration courts from the Department of Justice. I’ve just started to seriously consider the validity of this idea and I need to do more research and thinking about it. The American Bar Association’s recommendations are very persuasive and of significant interest to me. Before, I would not have thought it necessary.
Of course, moving the Immigration Courts to Article I status would not solve all our problems, but it could free us from some of the questions that have been raised over the years about politicized hiring, how cases are being politically prioritized, and whether that is appropriate for a court.
Another large change came in our ability to talk to those we serve. To best function, you have to talk to stakeholders on both sides: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the private bar/respondents. This used to be standard procedure in past administrations, and it was done at both the upper and ground levels. Recently, such conversations were much more limited, and took place primarily at higher levels, often above my position and that of my Deputies. This change was touted as a way to streamline the Agency’s messaging system, but cutting off other forms of communication is detrimental, and I think EOIR has been hampered by our inability to talk at different levels to stakeholders.
We previously had a great relationship with the American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”). For example, when I was working on conduct and professionalism for Immigration Judges, AILA was a great help. At the time, AILA’s message was the same as our message (poor conduct of adjudicators and representatives should be addressed), and we successfully partnered for a long time. Similarly, the CIJ previously had regular interactions with DHS’s Principal Legal Advisor and others in the DHS management chain, but that is no longer the case. Another change to the management structure that I believe was ill-advised was abolishing the “portfolio” ACIJs who bore targeted responsibility for several very important subjects to immigration court management: Judge conduct and professionalism, training, and vulnerable populations. In my experience, having officials whose specialized function was to oversee programs in these areas increased the integrity, accessibility, credibility, and efficiency of the court.
Asylumist: While you were CIJ, EOIR implemented quotas. IJs are now supposed to complete 700 cases per year. Can you comment on this?
Judge Keller: Many different court systems have performance goals and I am generally in favor of those. But the question is, How do you establish and implement them? Are you consulting the managers and IJs about it? How do you come up with the goals? Should they be uniform across the courts? The current requirements were not developed by me or my management team. Numeric expectations alone are not going to fix things. Timeliness is more important in my view than specific numbers. Moreover, the way that the emphasis is being placed on these numbers now sends the wrong message to both the parties and our judges and court staff. Also, court staff and stakeholders would more likely buy into such a change if they understood how the goal was developed, and why. My experience is that IJs are generally over-achievers and they want to do well and will meet or exceed any goals you set. In my view, completing 700 cases may be an appropriate expectation for some judges and dockets, and might be too high or even too low for others. Courts, dockets, and cases are vastly different from the southern border to the Pacific Northwest to the bigger cities, so I’m not sure about a one-size-fits-all approach.
Asylumist: What about the Migrant Protection Protocols (“MPP”), also known as the Remain in Mexico policy. Can you comment on the effectiveness or efficacy of this program?
Judge Keller: The MPP began right before I left EOIR. In the MPP, as with all dockets, the role of the immigration court is simply to hear and resolve the cases that DHS files, but there were and still are, many legal and procedural concerns about the program. For example, what is the status of a person when they come across the border for their hearing, are they detained or not? Also, there were significant practical considerations. If you bring people across the border and plan to use trailers or tents for hearings, you need lines for IT equipment, air conditioning, water, bathrooms, etc. All that needs to be taken care of well in advance and is a huge undertaking. My impression of the MPP was that it was a political policy decision, which, even if an appropriate DHS exercise, is evidence of how asking the court to prioritize political desires impacts the overall efficiency of the court. The resources it required us to commit in terms of planning, and the resources it took away from the remaining existing caseload will likely contribute to further delay in other cases.
Asylumist: According to press reports, you and two other senior EOIR officials–all three of you women–were forced out in June 2019. What happened? Why did you leave?
Judge Keller: Unless there is something I don’t know about my two colleagues, none of us was forced out. I was not. We could have stayed in our same roles if we had chosen to do so. At the same time, I would not necessarily say that our departures were completely coincidental. I do know that the nature of our jobs had changed considerably.
For me, the previous level of responsibility was no longer there, and I did not have the latitude to lead the OCIJ workforce. My experience and management skills were not being used and I was mostly implementing directives. Any time three experienced, high-level executives depart an agency, there should be cause for concern. The fact that we were all women certainly raises a question, but EOIR has always been pretty progressive in that regard. Nevertheless, appropriate equal respect for women in the workplace is something that unfortunately still needs attention everywhere.
Leaving EOIR was a hard decision for me to make, and I think it was a big loss for EOIR that all three of us chose to exit.
The politicization of the court was also a concern for me. Historically, the Director of EOIR was always a career SES appointee, not a political SES. I viewed that as critically important, symbolically and practically, for a court system, especially one like the immigration court within the Executive Branch. Director James McHenry is in a career Senior Executive position. However, his path to the position was through the new Administration, which had detailed him from his position as a relatively new Administrative Law Judge to Main DOJ as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for a while before he became the Director. It appears that the large majority of his career otherwise was at DHS in non-managerial positions.
Successfully overseeing or managing an organization the size of EOIR with all of its challenges today would be difficult even for a seasoned executive with a lot of management experience.
The question at this time for EOIR is, How does your mission of fair adjudication of immigration cases fit within the broader immigration goals of the government? It takes deft and nuanced management to ensure the integrity of a court of independent decision-makers while maintaining responsiveness to political leaders. A good manager listens to people with expertise and is skilled at motivating others, getting the most from each employee, developing well-thought-out operational plans to reach policy goals, and even changing course if necessary. Under Director McHenry, the advice of the agency’s career executives was often not even solicited, and did not appear to be valued. His approach caused many to question the soundness of his operational decisions, and his commitment to the mission of the court, as opposed to accommodating the prosecutorial goals of DHS. I didn’t think there was as much focus on improving how we heard cases, as there was on meeting numeric goals and adjusting to the priorities of the DHS.
Asylumist: The BIA recently added six new members. All are sitting IJs and all had lower than average asylum approval rates. Do you know how these IJs were selected? What was the process?
Judge Keller: This was stunning. I can’t imagine that the pool of applicants was such that only IJs would be hired, including two from the same city. I think IJs are generally eminently qualified to be Board Members, but to bring in all six from the immigration court? I’d like to think that the pool of applicants was more diverse than that. At both the courts and the BIA, we used to get applicants for judge positions from academia, the private sector, BIA, and other governmental entities. More recently, we also had experienced judges and adjudicators from various other administrative systems, the military, and state and local courts applying to be IJs. I find these recent BIA hires to be very unusual.
I do not know the process for selection, but suspect that Board Chairman David Neal* had minimal input into these hires. I find this scenario very odd.
* Note: Since this interview took place, the Chairman of the BIA, David Neal, left his position and retired from the federal government. Before serving as Chairman of the BIA, David Neal held many other leadership positions at EOIR over many years, including the Vice-Chairman of the BIA and Chief Immigration Judge.
Asylumist: EOIR has made some moves to decertify the IJ union. Do you know why? What do you think about this?
Judge Keller: This happened after I left, but of course, it is easier to run an organization without people questioning you. Good managers recognize that you want opposing viewpoints. Maybe I am biased because I was a union officer, but I was also a manager longer than I was a union leader, and I’ve seen both sides. When I first learned that attorneys and judges were unionized, I was surprised, but I have seen the value of that. As a manager, the union is a great source of information. There are inherent conflicts between management and any union, but the union often has goals similar to those of management. The relationship between a union and management must be carefully developed, managed, and maintained. In the end, I felt it was worth the extra effort.
Now, I think management is more comfortable without public questions. I think decertifying is a mistake, particularly now when there are so many other changes that demand focus.
Asylumist: When he was Attorney General, Jeff Sessions gave a speech to EOIR where he claimed that most asylum cases were fake. This is also a line we frequently hear from the Trump Administration. What was your opinion of that speech?
Judge Keller: I think you may be referring to a press conference the Attorney General held at EOIR in October 2017. In a speech that day, the Attorney General said that the asylum system was “subject to rampant abuse and fraud.” That was disheartening. Fraud is not a factor in the large majority of cases. We know about fraud and we have been dealing with it probably since the inception of the immigration court. But it is not true that overwhelming numbers of asylum seekers are coming to immigration court trying to fraudulently obtain benefits. Whether the majority of their claims ultimately lack merit is a different question. But it is the very fact that we have a robust system to examine and decide asylum claims that makes our country a role model to others. I do not think statements like that made by the Attorney General are helpful to the court’s credibility. If IJs had that speech in mind in court, they would be labeled as biased, and bias is not a good thing for a judge or a court.
For the current Administration, I think there is an underlying skepticism about the extent to which the system is being manipulated. The process is indeed imperfect. But if you think that there are inappropriate “loopholes,” then we need to fix the law or the process. That is why comprehensive, or at least extensive, immigration reform has been discussed for so long. The Attorney General articulated some potential improvements he wanted to make, but also unfortunately focused in that speech on fraud and abuse, as if it was a problem greater than I believe it is.
When I would give my speech to new IJs, I would tell them that they would see the best and the worst of human nature in immigration court. As an IJ, you see persecutors and those who were persecuted; courageous individuals and liars. It is a huge responsibility. Therefore, you can’t go into court as an IJ and be thinking either that everyone is telling the truth, or that everyone is manipulating the process. You have to have an open, yet critical mind. It seems to me that Attorney General Sessions did not have a full appreciation for our particular role. This again brings us back to the idea of an Article I court, or some other solution to solidify the independence of immigration court adjudicators.
Asylumist: What do you think should be done about asylum-decision disparities? Does something need to be done?
Judge Keller: Yes. I think that asylum decision disparities should be evaluated by immigration court managers as they may be a sign of an underlying problem that may need to be addressed. However, I do not believe that they can or should be entirely eliminated.
If a judge is significantly out of line with his or her colleagues in the local court, it might be a red flag. Sometimes, simple things impact grant rates. For example, did the IJ miss some training in a particular area and is that affecting the grant rate? Is the judge assigned or does a court have a docket that by its nature (detained, criminal) will result in a higher or lower grant rate? Court managers should be alert to and manage those issues.
We’ve been looking at this issue for a long time. I remember talking about it with many EOIR leaders and judges over the last 10 years. But each case is different from the next and you don’t want decisions on asylum made according to mathematical formulas as if by computers. Decisions on such important human matters should be made by people who know the legal requirements, and can exercise sound judgment.
One way we thought about addressing seemingly significant disparities was temporarily assigning IJs with high or low grant rates to courts where the grant rates are different. Sometimes, the best way to evaluate your own opinions is to think through them with people who have different views. The hope was that judges would have the time and opportunity to reflect on their approach to asylum.
Once, former Director Osuna and I went to Chicago to visit the judges of the Seventh Circuit, which was at the time highly critical of our judges. We met with several of the Circuit Judges and talked about many things, including disparities in immigration court. We explained our approach to disparities, namely, addressing training needs, addressing any inappropriate conduct via discipline, and improving resources. One of the Circuit Judges mentioned that he was appreciative of our approach, and suspected that if anyone looked at it, there are probably similar disparities at the circuit court level too. As long as human beings are deciding immigration cases, there will always be some disparities. However, significant disparities should be evaluated and action taken only if the disparity is the result of something inappropriate, that is, something other than the proper exercise of independent legal judgment.
Asylumist: What is your hope for the future of EOIR?
Judge Keller: I hope EOIR can hold onto its core focus of hearing and deciding cases fairly and impartially. I also hope that the parties in the process know that we are listening to them. Parties in any court should feel that they’ve received a fair shake and a fair decision. They should understand the reasons why their cases were decided a certain way, and should not have to wait for years to get resolution. That is our reason for being – to deliver that service.
We are living in a time of big lies. President Trump is notorious for his mendacity, and many members of his Administration are no better. These lies come in different shapes and sizes, and relate to topics as diverse as climate change, election meddling, hurricane forecasts, international trade, and Joe Biden. But the biggest and most oft-repeated lies seem to involve immigrants: Asylum seekers are criminals, separating children from parents at the border was Obama’s fault, the asylum system is a scam, non-citizens are voting in our elections, illegal immigrants get free healthcare and welfare benefits, Democrats support open borders, the Diversity Visa Lottery lets foreign governments choose who gets a green card, Muslim refugees were admitted into the U.S. while Christian refugees were refused, immigrants can sponsor all sorts of distant relatives through “chain migration,” Central American countries are safe, etc., etc.
The question I want to ask today is this: If the government itself is lying about asylum seekers, why shouldn’t asylum seekers lie if it helps them win their cases?
My interest here is not in practicality–it is clearly a bad idea to lie because you might get caught. Our government has a lot of information about asylum seekers and can use that information to test credibility. Asylum Officers, USCIS Officers, DHS attorneys, and Immigration Judges are good at examining witnesses and ferreting out falsehoods. Even if you get away with lying on an asylum application, the lie could come back to haunt you in the future (when you apply for residency or citizenship, or if you want to sponsor a family member). So there are good, practical reasons to tell the truth: You could lose your case, you could be blocked from any immigration benefits for life, you could end up in jail. And if you do get away with it, you can never really rest easy, and for as long as you are here, you will have to live with the possibility that your lie might be exposed and you could lose the life you’ve built in the United States. So in practice, lying is a bad idea. Here, though, I am interested in the morality of lying; not the practicality. Is it morally wrong to lie if that lie helps you to remain in the United States?
At one time, it would have been easy to answer that question in the affirmative. While President Obama’s policies were not always friendly to immigrants–he was called the “Deporter in Chief” by some immigration advocates–his Administration never engaged in the type of systematic dishonesty that we see from President Trump and his team. Despite all the problems during President Obama’s term (and there were many problems), at least it felt as though asylum applicants could generally have their cases adjudicated in an environment that was free from overt political interference. Given that people could get a fair shake, the moral justification for lying was a more difficult case to make.
In those distant days of the Obama Presidency, it was common to hear asylum seekers express great faith in our system of justice. That was one reason they came here in the first place. Their faith in our system made them more likely to tell the truth. Ironically, the constant barrage of lies from President Trump and his Administration is eroding faith in our system, which creates an increased incentive for individuals to falsify their own asylum stories. When the asylum system is discredited and illegitimate, the moral case for telling the truth is weakened.
Of course this outlook assumes a sort-of quid pro quo: If you (Trump) lie about me (asylum seeker), I can lie to you. This is an ends-justify-the-means approach that has never appealed to my sense of justice, and I am frankly uncomfortable with lying from a moral perspective simply because I believe lying is wrong–regardless of the end goal. But this is a type of morality that is easily deconstructed under various modern theories of legal justice. For example, when my law partner asks me, as he often does, “Do these pants make me look fat?” I always say no, even though those pants do make him look fat. I am lying for the sake of maintaining harmony in the office. Ends justifying means. So perhaps I should be less skittish about the moral implications of lying in other realms.
Indeed, support for the morality of lying for the “greater good” can be found in an old philosophical conundrum, presented by Benjamin Constant to Immanuel Kant in 1797. Kant basically believed that lying was always wrong, and so Constant challenged him with a scenario where a murderer is searching for his victim. The murderer arrives at the house of the victim’s friend and asks the friend where the victim is hiding. Does the friend have a duty to speak truthfully to the murderer? Constant argues that he does not–
The concept of duty is inseparable from the concept of right. A duty is that on the part of one being which corresponds to the rights of another. Where there are no rights, there are no duties. To tell the truth is therefore a duty, but only to one who has a right to the truth. But no one has a right to a truth that will harm others.
And so where the government is deliberately harming asylum seekers by lying about them in order to send them away, how can we say that asylum seekers have a duty to tell the truth to that same government?
For me, this is a difficult and uncomfortable question. But despite it all–the unfair laws (which long pre-date this Administration), the torrent of false claims about asylum seekers, the assault on due process–I still think lying is morally wrong in an asylum case. Here’s why: First, for me, the idea of asylum is somehow sacred. Our country is offering protection to strangers who need our help. We ask for nothing in return. In this respect, and despite a realpolitik element, asylum represents our highest ideals. And these are not just American ideals. The idea of welcoming the stranger is mentioned again and again in the Bible. Because I view asylum this way, the idea of lying to win one’s case feels like the violation of a sacred trust or covenant, and I see that as morally wrong.
Also, lying to win asylum further erodes the system and makes it harder for other asylum seekers to receive the protection they need. It is bad enough that the Trump Administration is systematically trying to dismantle our asylum system. When asylum seekers lie, they unwittingly aid in this effort and amplify it, and I believe that this is morally wrong.
Finally, I do not believe that two wrongs make a right. Just because the Administration is debasing itself by lying to harm asylum seekers, I do not think asylum seekers should do the same. I do not think it is moral to lower one’s own standards simply because another person is acting immorally, or even when we are operating in a system that is moving towards moral bankruptcy.
Having said all this, I recognize that I am far less affected by “the system” than the people seeking asylum. I have less to gain and less to lose. Each of us–asylum applicants, attorneys, decision-makers–has to make our own decision based on our own moral imperatives and our own needs. The President and his Administration have made their choice. They are lying to further their agenda. My hope is that asylum seekers and the asylum system can survive their lies while keeping our own morality intact.
There are now more than 1,000,000 people with cases pending before our nation’s Immigration Courts. The culmination of this process is the Individual Hearing, where the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) usually decides whether the applicant gets asylum, some other relief, or is ordered deported from our country. For asylum seekers, the Individual Hearing can be stressful and frightening. Here, we will discuss what to expect at that hearing. In prior posts, I discussed the Master Calendar Hearing, and how to prepare for the Individual Hearing.
Before we get to the substance of what happens at the Individual Hearing, I should mention that there are detained and non-detained hearings. A detained hearing is similar to a non-detained hearing in terms of the order of events, but sometimes the IJ and the alien are in different locations, and so cases are done by video (non-detained cases can also be done by video, but this is less common). These video hearings are more difficult to litigate, in terms of looking at documents, hearing each other talk, reading non-verbal cues, empathizing with the applicant, etc. Detained hearings are more difficult to prepare for, as it is difficult to gather evidence and get ready for your case when you are in jail.
Also, of course, different IJs have different styles (in Immigration Court, IJs decide the case – there are no juries). Some IJs ask a lot of questions; others ask no questions. Some are professional and respectful; others, not so much. It is helpful to know something about your IJ before the court hearing, so you can have an idea about what to expect. Statistics about asylum grant rates for many IJs can be found at TRAC Immigration.
Finally, as I discussed previously, many cases are won or lost before the trial even begins, and so how well the case is prepared will likely affect how the Individual Hearing proceeds.
As for the Individual Hearing itself, it begins when the IJ arrives in court. Everyone stands up for the Judge. Once everyone sits, the hearing usually begins with a conversation between the IJ and the lawyers (assuming the alien has a lawyer). During this discussion, the parties may try to narrow the issues that need to be discussed. Perhaps there are some areas of agreement, and it is helpful to know this in advance. Also, in some cases, the IJ will not need to hear testimony about the entire case – maybe the alien will only need to testify about part of her story.
At the beginning of the hearing, the IJ will ask what “relief” you are seeking. This can be asylum, Withholding of Removal, relief under the Torture Convention, Cancellation of Removal, Adjustment of Status, Voluntary Departure, and/or something else. The IJ will also mark the evidence and hear any objections. So if you submitted evidence, and the DHS attorney objects to that evidence, the Judge must decide whether or not to admit that evidence into the record, and how much “weight” to give to that piece of evidence (some evidence is considered more reliable than other evidence and hence receives more “weight” in terms of how much it influences the IJ’s decision). At this time, the IJ will also ask whether there are any changes to the form I-589. You can update your form and make any corrections. Once the form is updated, the IJ will have you sign the form under penalty of perjury. You will also be “sworn in” under the penalty of perjury. This is basically a promise to tell the truth, and if it is found that you are not telling the truth, there are potential immigration and criminal consequences. If there is an interpreter in your case, the interpreter will also be sworn in.
If you have brought any witnesses to court, they will typically be asked to wait outside, so they cannot hear your testimony. That way, their testimony can be compared to your testimony. If there are inconsistencies between your witness and you, it could cause the IJ to think you are not telling the truth. For this reason, it is important that the witnesses are prepared in advance, and that you and your witnesses are on the same page. Keep in mind that different people may have different memories of the same event, and even if they are both telling the truth, there is still a risk that the two accounts will not be consistent. For this reason, it is important to go over each person’s testimony prior to the court hearing.
Normally, the “respondent” (the alien who is the subject of the court proceeding) testifies first. This usually begins with your attorney asking questions (assuming again that you have an attorney). This is called the “direct examination,” and usually involves you telling your whole story. Once the testimony is done, the DHS attorney asks questions. This is called “cross examination.” During cross exam, the DHS attorney will often try to test your credibility. There are different ways to do this: Asking about prior inconsistencies in other applications (including any visa applications), at the Asylum Office, or during the credible fear interview; asking about testimony that seems implausible or inconsistent with country conditions; asking about documents or evidence that seems fraudulent. Hopefully, as you prepare your case, you will think about some possible avenues for cross examination and how you might respond. Afterwards, your attorney has an opportunity to ask some additional questions, based on what happened during cross examination. This is called “re-direct.” The IJ can interject with questions at any time.
During your testimony (and for your witnesses’ testimony), remember that if you do not understand a question, ask for clarification. Do not answer a question that you do not understand. If you do not know the answer to a question, or you do not remember the answer, just say that you don’t know or you don’t remember; don’t guess. If you need a moment to collect your thoughts, ask for that. If you need a break, ask for that too. If you have an interpreter and there is a problem with the interpretation, don’t be afraid to raise that issue as well (especially if you do not have a lawyer or your lawyer does not understand the language). Also, on cross exam, the DHS attorney often asks yes-or-no questions, and will sometimes insist on a yes-or-no answer (sometimes, the IJ will do this as well). If you cannot answer the question using a yes or no, try to explain that. If you feel that you have no choice but to answer yes or no, you should at least alert the IJ that you have more to say. On re-direct, you will have an opportunity to elaborate on your answer. Remember to always be polite and don’t lose your cool.
After your testimony is finished, it will be your witnesses’ turn. Sometimes, the IJ will accept a “proffer” of a witness’s testimony (assuming both your lawyer and DHS agree). This means that the IJ will accept the testimony as recounted in the witness’s letter (witnesses generally submit a statement in advance of trial), and that the witness will not actually need to testify. A proffer can be beneficial to your case (since it eliminates the possibility of inconsistent testimony), but it can also be a disadvantage (since the IJ will not hear the witness’s testimony, which would presumably support your asylum claim).
After all the testimony is done, most–but not all–IJs allow the lawyers to make closing arguments. This is an opportunity for the lawyers to explain why they think you should win (or, for the DHS lawyer, lose) your case. Some IJs prefer to have a discussion at the end of testimony, to see whether there is agreement about resolution of the case.
Finally, the IJ will either make an oral decision, reserve decision for later, or inform the parties about the next step (in some cases, the IJ needs more information from the parties before she can make a decision). In the majority of of cases, the IJ issues an oral decision that same day.
If you do not like the IJ’s decision, you can “reserve” appeal. If the DHS attorney does not like the IJ’s decision, DHS can reserve appeal. If you (or DHS) reserve appeal, you have 30 days to file the appeal using form EOIR-26. The IJ should give you the deadline for the appeal. If you or DHS appeal, the appeal will be resolved by the Board of Immigration Appeals. But that is a story for another day.