Chilean Revolutionary “Demands” Political Asylum – Gets Bupkis

by Jason Dzubow

I’ve long had a soft spot in my heart for Worker’s World newspaper, with its tag line: “Workers and Oppressed Peoples of the World Unite!”  I can’t say I always agreed with the paper, but is does sometimes highlight issues not covered by more mainstream news outlets.  

Victor Toro: Revenge is a dish best served Chile... er, cold.

One recent story caught my attention.  Last December, the paper had an article about Chilean “revolutionary” Victor Toro.  Mr. Toro claims to be a leader and founder of the Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR – the Revolutionary Left Movement) of Chile.  He was tortured in Chile because of his political opposition to General Pinochet’s dictatorship.  Mr. Toro has also been a well-known activist for immigrant’s rights in New York City for many years. 

According to Worker’s World, Mr. Toro, who is undocumented, was “racially profiled” by immigration agents and arrested in 2007.  He was then placed into removal proceedings where he “demanded” political asylum.

First, it strikes me as a bit ironic that a Chilean revolutionary–someone who opposed the U.S.-backed coup that violently overthrew elected president Salvador Allende in 1973–would seek asylum in the United States, the same country that helped orchestrate the coup. 

Second, it seems strange to “demand” asylum.  Maybe it is a technical point, but asylum is a discretionary form of relief; this means that the U.S. government can deny asylum in the exercise of its discretion (say, for example, if the asylum seeker is not a person of good moral character).  Given the discretionary nature of the relief, no one can “demand” asylum.  They have to ask for it.  Nicely.

Earlier this month, the Immigration Judge denied asylum.  Mr. Toro’s attorney issued a strongly-worded statement condemning the decision and vowing to appeal.  From what I can glean from the statement, the IJ denied relief principally because Mr. Toro did not file for asylum within one year of arriving in the U.S. and because country conditions in Chile had changed, making it safe for him to return. 

I have never worked on an asylum case from Chile, but given the current country conditions (good), I am not surprised that Mr. Toro’s case was denied.  What seems a real shame is that, had Mr. Toro applied in a timely manner, he might well have qualified for “humanitarian asylum.”  Humanitarian asylum is available to people who have suffered severe persecution in their country, and is available even if country conditions have improved.  Basically, it is a recognition that some people should not have to go back to a country where they suffered severe persecution.  

Mr. Toro was tortured severely in Chile, but apparently his failure to timely file for asylum prevented him from obtaining humanitarian asylum.  Thus–once again–an arbitrary filing deadline has caused real harm.  Frankly, I have my doubts that Mr. Toro will suffer persecution if he returns to Chile.  But considering that he suffered torture in his country previously, he should have received humanitarian asylum.   

Continue reading

Liu v. Holder: Frivolous Asylum Applications

by Jason Dzubow

The Ninth Circuit recently examined “the distinction between an applicant for asylum whose testimony lacks credibility and one who has ‘deliberately fabricated’ material aspects of her application. See Liu v. Holder, No. 08-72849 (9th Cir. Feb. 23, 2011).  The Court held:

“[A]n asylum application is frivolous if any of its material elements is deliberately fabricated.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20. If found to have “knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum,” an applicant will be “permanently ineligible for any benefits under [the Immigration and Nationality Act],” including asylum relief. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6). Given these harsh consequences, the distinctions between the requirements for an adverse credibility determination and a frivolousness finding are of critical importance.

The Court ultimately concluded that whether an alien submitted a frivolous asylum application is a “distinct question requiring a separate analysis.”

In examining Ms. Liu’s case, the Court found that the Board’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence.  However, “a finding of frivolousness does not flow automatically from an adverse credibility determination.”  The Court noted four substantive requirements that distinguish an adverse credibility finding from a finding of frivolousness:

First, an asylum application may be deemed frivolous only if it contains a deliberate fabrication, and the applicant has thus perpetrated a fraud on the court.  Second, a frivolousness determination requires a finding that a “material element” of the claim was fabricated, whereas an adverse credibility determination may be supported by an inconsistency or apparent falsehood that merely relates to a material element of the claim.  Third, although the “applicant for relief from removal has the burden of demonstrating that he or she meets all of the requirements” for such relief, the burden shifts to the government to prove the applicant has filed a frivolous application.  Fourth, a frivolousness finding requires a stronger evidentiary showing than an adverse credibility finding: frivolousness must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, whereas an adverse credibility finding must be supported only by substantial evidence.

Besides the substantive requirements, there are also procedural requirements for a finding of frivolousness.  In Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 151 (BIA 2007), the Board set forth four procedural requirements for a frivolous finding: 

(1) Notice to the alien of the consequences of filing a frivolous application; (2) A specific finding by the Immigration Judge or the Board that the alien knowingly filed a frivolous application; (3) Sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that a material element of the asylum application was deliberately fabricated; and (4) An indication that the alien has been afforded sufficient opportunity to account for any discrepancies or implausible aspects of the claim.

In other words, it’s not easy to have your asylum case found frivolous.  This is as it as it should be, given the harsh consequences for a frivolous finding.

Continue reading

2 Comments

DHS and Mentally Ill Respondents: Why Is the Fox Guarding the Hen House?

by Jason Dzubow

I recently learned about the removal case of mentally ill man from Africa.  Several years ago, the man was granted Withholding of Removal from his country because he faced persecution there.  His immigration case was recently re-opened after he committed a crime rendering him ineligible for Withholding.  He might still be eligible for relief under the UN Convention Against Torture, if he demonstrates that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured in his country.   

Based on an expert report, the Immigration Judge found that the man (who cannot be identified here) was not competent to represent himself.  At the IJ’s insistence, DHS appointed a custodian, an ICE Detention and Removal Officer.  At the hearing, the ICE officer failed to appear, so the IJ dismissed the case.  The IJ found that, because the alien could not represent himself, the absence of a custodian violated his right to due process of law.  DHS appealed and the case is currently before the Board of Immigration Appeals.

What concerns me is not the failure of the custodian to appear for the hearing (it seemed to be an honest mistake), but the fact that the custodian was an ICE Detention and Removal Officer.  Why is the person charged with physically detaining and removing the alien the same person who is supposed to represent the alien’s interests in court?  Clearly, something needs to be done.

According to the Immigration Policy Center, over the last year or so, DHS has been working with stakeholders to improve the situation for mentally ill aliens in immigration court.  Some issues are: (1) The absence of a formal mechanism to identify mentally ill aliens in immigration court; (2) Mentally disabled aliens are not appointed counsel in immigration court; (3) Aliens with mental disabilities cannot effectively represent themselves in court; and (4) Immigration judges have too many cases to effectively address the needs of aliens with mental disabilities.  Perhaps DHS will issue some standards to protect mentally ill aliens, though it is unlikely that the standards currently under consideration would satisfy advocates for the mentally ill.  (The Legal Action Center of the American Immigration Counsel has an informative website about this issue).

In the mean time, the BIA might take matters into its own hands.  In the pending case of Matter of L-T-, the Boards has requested briefing on issues related to mentally ill aliens in immigration court.  An amicus brief filed in this case by the Legal Action Center (formerly AILF) is available here.

Mentally ill aliens in immigration court face many difficulties.  At the minimum, we should try to ensure that their due process rights are protected.  As things stand now, that is not the case. 

Continue reading

2 Comments

In Defense of Government Bureaucrats

by Jason Dzubow

As an immigration attorney, I have plenty of contact with “government bureaucrats:” USCIS and ICE officers, DHS attorneys, CBP officials, and Immigration Judges, to name a few.  Some of them can be annoying (why can’t they always just do what I want?).  A few are downright mean or incompetent.  But the current attack against government workers gives me pause.

Do you love your country? Thank a bureaucrat.
Do you love your country? Thank a bureaucrat.

John Boehner recently dismissed concerns that proposed budget cuts would cost tens or hundreds of thousands of government jobs: “So be it,” he said.  And in Wisconsin, the Republican governor has used the budget crisis as an excuse to bust government employee unions.  It’s all part of a philosophy of government that stretches back to President Reagan, who famous told us that “government is the problem.”

My view is that the current climate of disrespect for government workers is dangerous to our democracy and reflects a naiveté bordering on stupidity.

Ours is a nation of laws, and those laws are enforced by government workers.  Whether their responsibility is to enforce immigration laws, protect the environment, educate our children or ensure that our food is safe, government workers implement the law.  They are not always perfect, to be sure, but generally they have helped perpetuate a democratic system based on the rule of law.  Thus, the attacks against them are dangerous to our democracy.

Also, these attacks are incredibly naive.  Anyone who has spent time in a country that does not have an established, (relatively) corruption-free bureaucracy understands how crucial it is to have honest civil servants.  If you want to know why the United States is different from any number of third world countries, look no further than the people who enforce our laws.  The idea that attacking them and devaluing their service is somehow patriotic is ridiculous.

While I can’t say I always love the government workers I interact with, I recognize that they are an indispensible part of our system of government.  The recent attacks against “government bureaucrats” are not only wrong-headed, they are downright unpatriotic.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Mubarak Is Not Eligible for Asylum

by Jason Dzubow
When your photo is crossed out AND burned, you know it's time to go.

After 30 years of autocratic rule, the people of Egypt have forced President Hosni Mubarak to resign.  There has been much talk about Mr. Mubarak seeking asylum abroad, but does he qualify for asylum under international law?  I think the answer is an unqualified “No!”

A person who faces a well founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or particular social group, may qualify for asylum.  However, one who “ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person” on account of a protected ground is barred from asylum.  Under this provision, Mr. Mubarak is barred from receiving asylum.

Here are some reports about Mr. Mubarak’s Egypt.  First, from the U.S. State Department:

The government’s respect for human rights remained poor, and serious abuses continued in many areas.  The government limited citizens’ right to change their government and continued a state of emergency that has been in place almost continuously since 1967.  Security forces used unwarranted lethal force and tortured and abused prisoners and detainees, in most cases with impunity….  Security forces arbitrarily arrested and detained individuals, in some cases for political purposes, and kept them in prolonged pretrial detention.

Amnesty International reports:

The government continued to use state of emergency powers to detain peaceful critics and opponents….  Some were held under administrative detention orders; others were sentenced to prison terms after unfair trials before military courts.  Torture and other ill-treatment remained widespread in police cells, security police detention centres and prisons, and in most cases were committed with impunity.

And this, from the Daily Beast:

Few know the cruelty of Mubarak’s regime better than [Kareem] Amer, who spent the last four years in prison for criticizing the dictator and “insulting” Islam on his blog.  When I asked him to describe Mubarak’s record, he said: “Many human-rights activists and journalists were imprisoned during his reign.  Some were beaten and tortured.  Others were abducted or disappeared without a trace.  The most important of these incidents was the disappearance of the Egyptian journalist Reda Helal in the heart of Cairo in 2003.  Many believe the security services were behind the abduction because of his political views.”

Mr. Mubarak has been an ally of the U.S. and he respected the peace treaty with Israel, but he was a human rights abuser who held power by torturing and killing his own people.  With such a record, it is clear that Mr. Mubarak would be barred from asylum under international law.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Immigration Judges Repudiate Asylum Officers

by Jason Dzubow

The Executive Office for Immigration Review has released its Statistical Yearbook for FY 2010.  Page 33 of the report lists the Immigration Court grant rates for affirmative and defensive asylum cases.  According to the report:

There is some difference in the grant rates depending on whether the asylum application was filed affirmatively or defensively.  There are two ways that aliens may request asylum: “affirmatively,” by completing an asylum application and filing it with a DHS Asylum Office; or “defensively,” by requesting asylum before an immigration judge [after the alien has been placed into removal proceedings]. 

The IJ grant rate for affirmative cases is significantly higher than for defensive cases:

Year

 IJ Grant Rate for Affirmative Asylum Cases

IJ Grant Rate for Defensive Asylum Cases

 FY 2006

 51%

 34%

 FY 2007

 51%

 39%

 FY 2008

 51%

 37%

 FY 2009

 55%

 36%

 FY 2010

 61%

 35%

This seems counterintuitive–affirmative cases have already been reviewed by the Asylum Office, which should have granted the applications that qualify for asylum, so the Immigration Courts are only reviewing affirmative cases that have previously been denied.  Defensive cases, on the other hand, come before the Court for the first time, so the judges are reviewing the good cases and the bad cases.  The low grant rate for defensive cases can be explained (many are denied because they are not filed within the one year deadline or because the claims are barred for other reasons, such as criminal convictions), but what interests me is the relatively high grant rate for affirmative cases.

Judges are not pleased by the high number of referred asylum cases.

Each affirmative asylum case has already been reviewed and denied (technically, referred) by the Asylum Office.  Thus, all the affirmative cases that come before the Immigration Court have been examined and rejected by a trained asylum officer.  Why, then, are 61% of those decisions being reversed by Immigration Judges? 

One reason may be that more asylum seekers are represented before judges than before the Asylum Office.  There is no doubt that a good attorney makes a difference in whether a case is granted (88% of unrepresented asylum seekers are denied, as compared with about 55% of represented asylum seekers). 

Also, because Asylum Officers generally do not need to describe their reasons for a denial, they can be more sloppy than IJs.  I experienced this in a recent decision referring one of my clients to court: the Asylum Officer used a boilerplate excuse–that there were “material inconsistencies” in the client’s testimony–to deny the case.  In fact, the client’s testimony was consistent with her affidavit, supporting documents, and country conditions.  However, because the Asylum Officer is not accountable to anyone for his decision, he can deny the case without explaining himself (and in a manner that–to me at least–was intellectually dishonest).   

When Asylum Officers refer cases to court that should be granted, it is a waste of government resources.  It also causes unnecessary stress and expense (not to mention wasted time) for the alien.  I don’t know whether it has been done before, but it would seem worthwhile to study referred cases that have been granted by IJs.  Perhaps such a study would lead to improvements in how the Asylum Offices (or the Immigration Courts) adjudicate cases.

Continue reading

7 Comments

FAIR Gets It Wrong

by Jason Dzubow

The Federation for American Immigration Reform recently issued a report called Refugee and Asylum Policy Reform.  I already blogged about flaws in the report’s methodology and some points in the report I agree with.  For today, I want to discuss some points that I disagree with (i.e., where FAIR got it wrong).

The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS)

The FAIR report basically attacks HIAS:

I wonder if this refugee family - reunited with help from HIAS - thinks the organization has outlived its purpose.

A prime example of a refugee resettlement organization whose raison d’etre has become self-perpetuation is the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS). The venerable organization that has helped Jews fleeing pogroms, the Holocaust and, more recently, oppression in the Soviet Union, has been confronted with a situation that might otherwise be considered a positive development: There [are] remarkably few Jewish refugees in need of resettlement. Without a real mission, HIAS has resorted to inventing one rather than declaring its mission accomplished and closing its doors. By its own admission, only a small percentage of the people resettled by HIAS are the people whom the organization ostensibly exists to serve.

This statement is pretty ridiculous.  Today, there are over 14 million refugees in the world.  HIAS was created to help Jewish refugees.  Now that (thankfully) there are few Jewish refugees, HIAS uses its expertise to assist other people in need.  To anyone concerned about helping others, this seems like a no-brainer.  Apparently, though, FAIR doesn’t get it. 

Particular Social Group

FAIR complains that the definition of “particular social group” has been expanded too far.  Specifically, the report mentions homosexuals, and argues that most cases of persecution based on sexual orientation involve persecution by private individuals where the government cannot or will not protect the individual from harm.  FAIR objects to this in principle:

In essence, decisions of this type put the United States in the position of a safety valve whenever foreign governments fail to exercise their responsibilities to protect their own citizens. That may be a noble objective, but it is an unreasonable burden.

First, while some cases of persecution of gays involve non-state actors, a number of countries persecute homosexuals, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, where the “offense” of homosexuality is punishable by death.  Second, protecting individuals who face harm or death is not an “unreasonable burden” (when is saving someone’s life ever really an unreasonable burden?).  There are no statistics about the number of people granted asylum based on “particular social group,” but my guess is that only a small percentage of asylum seekers fear persecution on account of their particular social group.  So even if we are concerned with the number of people winning asylum based on this protected ground, that number is fairly small.  Finally, the asylum law does not require state action–people who face persecution from non-state actors are eligible for asylum if their government cannot or will not protect them.  To the person who is persecuted or killed, it may not matter much whether he is killed due to government action or government inaction.  Dead, as they say, is dead.

Asylum Should Be Temporary

FAIR also believes that a grant of asylum should generally be temporary:

Asylum protection should be temporary, maintaining the focus of the individual on the need to return to the home country to work for positive change.

By this logic, we should have sent Einstein back to Nazi Germany to work for “positive change.”  

The hope, of course, is that asylum seekers will return to their country if conditions improve, but the reality is that most will not–even if it becomes safe to go back.  For one thing, it usually takes a long time for country conditions to change.  I represent many asylum seekers from Ethiopia.  That country has had the same repressive government for almost 20 years, and it does not look to improve anytime soon.  Also, people need to feel that they are safe.  To grant someone asylum, only to deport her later, leaves her in a frightful limbo, unable to move forward with her life or to feel secure.  Finally, when helping another person, it is important to respect that person.  We should respect asylees enough to allow them to make their own decision about whether it is safe to return.

So I suppose that concludes my comments on FAIR’s report.  While I disagree with many of the recommendations, the report raises points that are worth discussing, and I hope the conversation will continue.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Why It Is Offensive to Read the Constitution

by Jason Dzubow

I may belong to the last generation of Americans who make analogies to Eddie Haskell, Wally Cleaver’s two-faced friend from Leave It to Beaver who used to give Beaver “the business” and then turn around and feign sweetness towards his mother.  Mrs. Cleaver never bought Eddie’s act, but she was always too polite to say anything.  In the current scenario, the House Republicans are Eddie Haskell and the American People are June Cleaver. 

Golly Gee Willikers! What's wrong with reading the Constitution?

The House Republicans read the Constitution at the start of the new Congress, and then dared anyone to object: What red-blooded American could oppose reading the Constitution, they ask with feigned incredulity.  I object, and I think all Americans should too. 

So what’s wrong with reading the Constitution?  The problem, of course, is not the Constitution itself, but the underlying message, delivered with a wink: We Republicans and Tea Partiers–not you–own this document.  It is ours to interpret.  We–not you–know what it means.  We’ll explain it to you in our folksy, no nonsense, commonsensical style.  We’ll use words like “originalism,” “Judeo-Christian,” and “American exceptionalism.”  No reasonable person—no real American—could possibly hold any other view of our founding document.  It’s so simple, the Republicans tell us, even a liberal could understand.

But the Constitution does not belong to the Republicans, or the Tea Partiers.  It belongs to all Americans.  To everyone.  The triumph and the tragedy of the Constitution is that it is subject to different interpretations.  The search for certainty in the document is a red herring.  In the 1920s and 30s, the search for certainty led many countries to turn to the Übermensch, the strong father figure who promised security in a dangerous and uncertain world.  We all know how that turned out.  As adults, we must accept that certainty is an illusion. 

And while the lack of certainty might be discomfiting, this is also the brilliance of our founding document.  It requires vigorous debate.  It requires engagement on substantive issues.  Without the uncertainty of the Constitution, we would not have had the great or the terrible decisions that shaped our nation: Dred Scott, Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore.  The Constitution’s ambiguity led us to debate the important issues of our time, but the document has also given us an historic framework and a legal process for those debates.   

They say, we are who we are because of, and in spite of our parents.  We as a nation are what we are because of and in spite of the Constitution.  By attempting to seize exclusive control of this document through a seemingly innocent, Eddie Haskell-like reading, Conservatives want to force their interpretation upon us and to cut off debate.  They did the same thing with the American flag, turning it into a symbol for the Right, worn on every “real American’s” lapel.  Co-opting jingoistic symbols of patriotism is one thing, but when they try to make us swallow their version of the Constitution and no other, we need to stand up and say no.  That is why the Republican’s reading of the Constitution in the House was so offensive.

Continue reading

3 Comments

FAIR’s Report on Asylees and Refugees Offers a Distorted Picture

by Jason Dzubow

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) recently released a report calling for reform of our country’s refugee and asylum policies.  The report, titled Refugee and Asylum Policy Reform, was authored by FAIR’s Director of Special Projects, Jack Martin.  The report covers a wide range of topics, from refugee admissions, to Temporary Protected States (TPS), to Chinese family planning asylum.  In general–and as expected–it calls for restricting humanitarian benefits for people seeking protection in the United States.  Concerning asylum, the report states:

Our country’s asylum law has been expanded by legislation and by court decisions to the extent that it has grown from a small program intended for unusual situations, where the return to a home country would constitute exposure to persecution, to become a major component of immigrant admissions. It too, by the absence of evidentiary standards, is open to fraud by persons who have no other basis for entry as immigrants.   

Having reviewed the report, there are some points I agree with, more points that I disagree with, and a few questions I have about the report’s methodology.  The report is fairly long (36 pages), and there are a number of points worth discussing, so I will devote a couple blog posts to my response.  For today’s post, I want to raise a few questions about the report’s methodology. 

The report, p. 5, states that “combined refugee and asylee admissions have hit new levels in recent years, exceeding 200,000 in 2006,” but it is not clear where FAIR gets its numbers.  According to the Department of Homeland Security, in 2006, 41,150 people were admitted into the United States as refugees, 12,873 were granted asylum affirmatively, and 13,240 were granted asylum defensively.  By my calculation, the total number of refugee and asylee admissions for 2006 was 67,263 people.  The figure of 200,000 likely refers to the number of asylees and refugees who adjusted status to lawful permanent residents in 2006.  These are not new admissions.  Rather, these are people who have been in the United States–in some cases for many years–who were able to adjust status after the cap on refugee adjustments was lifted in 2005. 

Does anyone really trust statistics?

Also on page 5 of the report, there is a chart showing how many refugees and asylees were admitted into the U.S. from 1990 to 2009.  The data on the chart purportedly comes from the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.  But even a casual comparison of the Yearbook to FAIR’s chart reveals major discrepancies.  For example, FAIR’s chart shows that over 100,000 refugees were admitted into the United States in 2009.  However, the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (Table 13) states that 74,602 refugees were admitted in 2009.  The chart also shows over 100,000 refugee admissions in 2002, but the Yearbook (Table 13) indicates that only 26,765 refugees were admitted in 2002.  Again, FAIR’s numbers appear to be the number of refugees who adjusted status (i.e., obtained their green card) in a given year, not the number of refugees who actually entered the United States in the specified year.

Page 6 of the report refers to refugees from the Soviet Block.  The report notes that the number of refugees has “nosedived” since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but states: “It is significant, however, that the admission of refugees from Russia and the Ukraine has not ended.”  Next to this statement is a chart, purportedly showing the number of refugees from the “Soviet Union/Ukraine.”  The chart shows that about 4,000 refugees came from the “Soviet Union/Ukraine” in 2009.  A review of the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (Table 14) shows that in 2009, 495 refugees came from Russia and 601 came from the Ukraine, for a total of 1,096, far short of the 4,000 refugees listed on FAIR’s chart.  Again, FAIR seems to be listing the number of refugees from the former Soviet Union who are adjusting status, not the number of new admissions.  Some of these refugees may have lived in the U.S. for decades before adjusting status.

Page 14 of the report unfairly represents the proportion of refugees accepted by the United States.  The report states:

[The] United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR)… states that the United States accepted of 62,000 refugees out of 84,000 who were identified as needing permanent resettlement by that agency in 2009 — nearly three-fourths of the total.

In fact, footnote 23 of the FAIR report states that: “In 2009, UNHCR submitted 129,000 refugees for resettlement…. 84,000 refugees were actually resettled last year.”  So it seems to me a bit misleading to say that the U.S. accepted “62,000 refugees out of 84,000 who were identified as needing permanent resettlement,” when, in reality, the UN identified 129,000 refugees in need of permanent resettlement (and when there are about 15 million refugees worldwide).  This means that the U.S. accepted less than half of the refugees identified for resettlement, not three-fourths as stated in FAIR’s report. 

In sum, FAIR’s report gives a distorted impression of the number of refugees and asylees coming to the U.S.  The report should have relied on the number of new arrivals–not the number of refugees and asylees who are already here and who are applying for residency–to make its points.  Perhaps this would have made FAIR’s points somewhat less compelling, since the number of refugees and asylees arriving in the U.S. is less than what the report represents, but it would have had the virtue of being less misleading.

In future posts, I will discuss some points of agreement and disagreement with FAIR’s policy recommendations.    

Continue reading

3 Comments

Witnesses: The Triumph or Tragedy of an Asylum Case

by Jason Dzubow

I finished my last asylum trial of the year earlier this month, and I almost lost the case, thanks to a witness who had flown in from Cameroon especially for the occasion. 

I felt that our case was pretty strong–my client was a political activist who had been arrested several times in his country.  The case was well documented, and my client seemed credible.  Even the government attorney indicated that we should get it over with quickly–a sure sign that she anticipated a grant.  Then, basically out of nowhere, the witness starts babbling about the time he and my client were arrested together in Cameroon.  My client had never mentioned this arrest to me, nor had the witness told me about it during our preparation session.  In Immigration Court, attorneys are not permitted to strangle their own witnesses, so there was nothing I could do but watch my case go down the drain.  Fortunately, during re-direct, I was able to elicit some explanation from the witness.  Then we had my client return to the stand to further clarify.  In the end, the Judge granted relief, but a strong case was nearly sunk by a witness with a big mouth.

The Rules of Professional Conduct do not allow an attorney to strangle a witness, even when it seems justified.

All this raises the question: Do the benefits of witnesses outweigh the risks?  It’s a question I have thought a lot about.  On the one hand, the REAL ID Act requires us to submit reasonably available evidence, so if a witness is available and we do not bring her to Court, the IJ could use that to support a denial.  On the other hand, it is difficult to hold the respondent responsible for a witness who fails to appear, and a well-supported case will likely be granted even when there is no witness. 

Nevertheless, I tend to bring witnesses to Court if I have them.  For one thing (and perhaps this is naive), I feel a certain duty to present my case, for better or worse.  If the IJ sees that we are presenting everything we have, and being as open as possible, I believe that we are more likely to win the case.  Also, I feel it makes me a more credible lawyer, and thus helps my clients over the long run.  In addition (and again, possibly naively), I believe I can usually prepare the witness for cross examination and anticipate questions that the DHS attorney might ask.  When the respondent and her witness testify consistently about details of an event (especially when those details have not been presented previously in the written statements), it is strong evidence of their veracity.  Finally, I tend to believe (maybe yet again naively) that my clients are telling me the truth when they describe the basis for their asylum claim.  If the client is telling the truth, a well-prepared witness should only help the case.  If the client is lying about his claim, and inconsistent testimony exposes the lie, the client really only has himself to blame. 

Of course, even in a completely bona fide case, an ill-prepared or foolish witness can tank an asylum claim.  That is why I am very wary of witnesses who can corroborate large tracts of a respondent’s story.  The more the witness knows about a respondent’s story, the more opportunities exist for the DHS attorney (or the IJ) to ask detailed question about information not in the written statement and that we did not discuss during trial preparation (the idea is to ask questions that the witnesses are not prepared for, and then compare the answers to make sure the testimony is consistent).  Such questions can be confusing to witnesses who–despite repeated reminders not to do so–sometimes guess at the answers.  A better witness is a person with first-hand knowledge of one small part of the case.  Such a person is less likely to face a broad range of questions from the DHS attorney.

Despite the risks, I feel that a well-prepared witness can go a long way towards winning an asylum case.  I can think of several cases that were won by credible witnesses.  Each case is different, and there are good arguments for avoiding the risks inherent in using a witness.  Despite the risks, I will continue to favor the use of witnesses in my cases.    

Continue reading

1 Comment

KIND Helps Unaccompanied Children, but Are There Unintended Consequences?

by Jason Dzubow

Every year, about 8,000 unaccompanied children enter the United States and are placed in removal proceedings.  Many of those children are helped by KIND–Kids in Need of Defense, a non-profit organization begun in January 2009 with a $3 million grant from Microsoft (and help from refugee maven Angelina Jolie).  Pleased with the success of the organization, which has offices in eight cities, Microsoft last month committed to another $3 million over the next three years.

According to a press release:

Since KIND became operational in January 2009, almost 1,900 children have been referred to KIND for help finding a pro bono attorney; the children range in age from two to 18 years old, and come from more than 35 countries.  KIND’s model is an innovative public-private partnership in which lawyers from firms, corporations, or private practice volunteer to represent children in immigration proceedings.

According to KIND Executive Director Wendy Young:

Many of these children are escaping severe abuse or persecution; others have been abandoned or have been trafficked to the United States.  Some are hoping to reunite with their parents.  They need and deserve representation to help them make their claim for U.S. protection.  Without representation, children with viable claims are often unable to make them and can be sent back to their home countries, where their well-being, or even their lives, may be in danger.

There is an argument to be made that granting benefits to children who cross the border illegally creates an incentive for others to follow them and make the risky journey to the United States.  And it is a dangerous trip–a group that tracks border deaths, No More Deaths, reports that over 250 people have died along the Arizona border during the last year.  Hundreds more have died trying to enter through New Mexico, Texas, and California, or at other locations on the refugee route from Central America.  I knew a prominent DHS attorney who routinely (and passionately) opposed relief for children who crossed the border illegally because he did not want to create incentives for other children.

After pedaling for many days, a border crosser gets ready to jump the fence.

While I agree that we don’t want to create incentives for children to risk their lives by crossing illegally into the United States, I doubt that assisting children with their cases does much to create such an incentive.  For one thing, many of the children are leaving pretty awful circumstances–if they were safe and happy, they would stay home.  In this context, the border crossing may be one of the least dangerous things they have to do to survive.  Also, given the large flow of people across the border (in both directions), it seems unlikely that allowing those with meritorious cases to remain here would do much to incentivize people outside the U.S.  Finally, young people are less likely to know about or be influenced by government policies.  Even if we were deported all children who enter the U.S. without inspection, I think it would do little to dissuade others who are fleeing abuse or persecution in their homelands.

If children with legitimate claims are denied–perhaps because they are unrepresented and cannot present their cases effectively–it would mean returning them to dangerous circumstances in their home countries.  Unaccompanied children who have fled to the U.S. seeking safety need help from KIND and other similar organizations.  Without KIND’s help, many of those with legitimate claims would be sent back to their countries, where they would face abuse or worse. 

With the most recent grant from Microsoft, it seems KIND will continue its life-saving work for some time to come.

Continue reading

2 Comments

The Unbearable Lightness of BIA-ing

by Jason Dzubow

In an average year, the  Board of Immigration Appeals decides over 35,000 cases, but publishes less than 40 decisions.  The small number of published decisions provides insufficient guidance to the nation’s Immigration Judges and results in inconsistent rulings between judges.  The lack of guidance has also contributed to the dramatic increase in immigration cases heard by the federal courts of appeals.  So instead of the law being settled by the BIA–which specializes in immigration–the various appeals courts have been interpreting the law, not always consistent with their sister circuits.

Here is how the numbers break down for the last few years: In 2009, the BIA decided 33,103 cases and published 34 decisions.  In 2008, it decided 38,369 cases and published 33 decisions.  In 2007, it decided 35,394 cases with 45 published decisions, and in 2006, it decided 41,476 cases and published 26 decisions.  So far this year, the Board has published 31 decisions.

Maybe Harry Truman could lend the BIA his famous sign.

When I was at the AILA conference last summer, we heard that published decisions require far more time and resources than unpublished decisions, but I just don’t buy it.  The BIA is authorized to have up to 15 Board Members.  It has a staff of well over 100 attorneys.  So even during their most prolific year (2007, when they published 45 decisions), each Board Member was required to write only three decisions, and each staff attorney wrote less than half of one decision.   

According to the BIA Practice Manual:

Decisions selected for publication meet one or more of several criteria, including but not limited to: the resolution of an issue of first impression; alteration, modification, or clarification of an existing rule of law; reaffirmation of an existing rule of law; resolution of a conflict of authority; and discussion of an issue of significant public interest.

It’s hard to believe that of the 30 to 40 thousand cases the Board reviews each year, only about 0.1% (one in one thousand) contain an issue that meets the above criteria.  I’ve had several cases before the BIA that involved issues of first impression, none of which were published (though two of them were published decisions by federal circuit courts).  Why is the Board passing the buck on decisions to the federal courts of appeals?

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

The BIA should embrace its role as “the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws” and publish more decisions.

Continue reading

9 Comments

Do Immigration Lawyers Suck?

by Jason Dzubow

According to the EOIR website’s List of Currently Disciplined Practitioners, almost 400 immigration attorneys (397 by my count) have been seriously disciplined since 2000.  What I mean by “seriously disciplined” is suspended or expelled from the practice of law.  The list does not include attorneys who have been subjected to lesser punishments, such as “reprimands” or “admonishments,” whatever those are.

Last I heard, there were around 10,000 attorney-members of AILA, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, but it is unclear how many other attorneys practice immigration law.  Assuming (and it is a big assumption) that AILA represents 50% of all immigration attorneys; there are about 20,000 immigration attorneys nationwide.  If 400 of them had been suspended, that means that about 2% of all immigration attorneys have been seriously disciplined. 

Even these guys would have a hard time getting suspended.

Depending on your point of view, maybe 2% is a lot, or maybe it is a little.  Call me a pessimist, but if I hire someone to assist me with one of the most important endeavors in my life, and there is a 2% chance that that person is a crook, I would feel a bit uneasy.  If 2% of pilots were incompetent, I doubt many people would fly.

But my guess is that the problems are worse than the numbers reveal.  For one thing, it’s not easy to get suspended or expelled from the practice of law.  I once filed a bar complaint against an attorney for lying to my client, stealing his money, and getting him ordered deported (the complaint was a required part of the process to get the case reopened).  We had all sorts of documentation proving this attorney’s incompetence and maliciousness.  The Bar Association found that she had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, but declined to punish her because there were “special circumstances.”  Ironically, the “special circumstances” were that she had already been punished for destroying the cases of two other people.  So, in other words, she was saved from punishment by her own prior bad acts.  It’s ridiculous, but it helps illustrate how difficult it is to get suspended.  Nevertheless, 400 of my fellow immigration attorneys have managed to do so.

Another problem is that immigrants–particularly illegal immigrants–are unlikely to report bad attorneys.  Many immigrants do not speak English and are not familiar with their rights.  They do not know how to report attorneys.  Also, they might be afraid to report attorneys. 

For these reasons, my guess is that the 400 attorneys on the EOIR list represents only a fraction of the incompetent and/or dishonest immigration attorneys who are practicing law today. 

Of course, the vast majority of immigration attorneys are caring, competent, and honest.  Most (if not all) attorneys I know have worked long hours for little or no pay to help clients in need.  Immigration law is usually not the most lucrative field, and most attorneys practice in this area because we want to help people fleeing persecution or reuniting with family or making a better life.  I do think we have a responsibility to report bad conduct when we see it, and to encourage people who have been harmed to file complaints where appropriate.  Bar associations should also be more aggressive in enforcing the rules.  In this way, we can protect our clients and improve the profession. 

Continue reading

9 Comments

Amicus Brief on Protecting Mentally Disabled Respondents

by Jason Dzubow

Human Rights Watch and Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP recently filed an amicus brief with the Board of Immigration Appeals in the case of an alien with a mental disability.  The brief is based on a year-long, joint investigation by HRW and the American Civil Liberties Union concerning violations of the rights of people with mental disabilities in the U.S. immigration system.  The report is called Deportation by Default: Mental Disability, Unfair Hearings, and Indefinite Detention in the US Immigration System.

Our view of the mentally ill continues to evlove, but we've still got a way to go.

In the amicus brief, HRW argues that all respondents in immigration and removal proceedings, including those with mental disabilities, are entitled to a fair hearing and a chance to defend their rights.  From the brief: 

“‘The [incompetency] doctrine [where a defendant can not stand trial if he can’t comprehend the charges against him, can’t effectively consult with counsel, and can’t assist in his defense] . . . has been characterized by the Supreme Court as ‘fundamental to an adversary system of justice.'”  Removal proceedings must respect human rights, honor U.S. human rights commitments, and ensure fair and accurate decision-making.  A fair hearing is central to the protection of a person’s rights and is the hallmark of a functioning justice system. 

To meet the right to a fair hearing guaranteed under international human rights law, meaningful safeguards are necessary to ensure such a fair hearing and protect the rights of individuals with mental disabilities.  Among these safeguards are (1) the respondent’s right to counsel, (2) the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) ability to terminate proceedings, (3) the IJ’s power to order a competency hearing, and (4) the right to be free from arbitrary and prolonged detention. 

In order to comply with international human rights obligations, individuals with mental disabilities must be guaranteed the right to counsel in removal proceedings.  Even then, in certain circumstances, if the IJ determines that a respondent with a mental disability cannot explain the reasons against expulsion, even with counsel, the IJ must be empowered to terminate proceedings. 

U.S. immigration law currently provides no right to appointed counsel for individuals with mental disabilities and remains confusingly unclear as to whether and under what circumstances an IJ may terminate proceedings or order a competency evaluation.  Moreover, in the absence of these important safeguards to ensure a fair hearing, many immigration detainees with mental disabilities remain in prolonged detention during their immigration hearings.  Accordingly, U.S. immigration law currently violates international human rights standards. 

If this case is anything like the cases I’ve litigated in the BIA, we won’t have an answer until late 2012, but it will be interesting to see whether the BIA responds in a positive way to the brief.  The power of the BIA is limited, but at a minimum, it could issue guidance about terminating cases where a respondent is unable to defend himself due to a mental disability.  However, my guess is that the laudable goals set out in the brief are above the pay grade of the BIA. 

Continue reading

When Silence is Golden: Interpreters and Asylum

by Jason Dzubow
This blog entry is by ace reporter Maria Raquel McFadden.  Ms. McFadden is also a freelance business, legal, and immigration interpreter with 10 years experience.   She has interpreted in various forums including courts, immigration interviews, depositions, and business meetings.  Ms. McFadden is registered with the State of Maryland and can be reached at: Office: 202-709-3602 or Cell: 202-360-2736; mcfadden.maria@gmail.com.          
Asylum seekers are often fraught with misgivings and anxiety about providing information that they feel might make them victims of reprisals should their claim be denied.  It is important that besides being informed of attorney-client confidentiality, asylum seekers be made aware that the entirety of the asylum process is protected by confidentiality laws and regulations. Interpreters are not only bound by these rules but also by their cannon of ethics and standards, which also requires confidentiality.

Like many other professionals, interpreters must follow certain standards of practice while on the job.  Despite the fact that the number and order of cannons in the interpreters’ “Code of Ethics” can vary a bit among accrediting bodies and hiring agencies, a perennial tenet is the one of confidentiality.  

Though once in a while a very special and extraordinary circumstance might occur that can override the principle of confidentiality (such being told  directly the whereabouts of a currently kidnapped victim by a non-English or limited English speaker ), all must bear in mind that this cannon is one of the foremost importance. 
Interpreters often have access to protected, restricted, private and/or sensitive information.  The oath taken by professional interpreters to adhere to  confidentiality assures asylum seekers and all connected to the case (including witnesses) that the facts and circumstances they share with the private bar attorneys, immigration judge or immigration officers, and other U.S. government personnel will not be divulged by the interpreter to an outside party.  
No matter whether the process is an asylum hearing, a credible fear or reasonable fear determination hearing, an interpreter may not share any information he/she has learned (whether orally or in writing) before, during or after the proceeding. 
From time to time, for educational purposes, interpreters do and should share language issues that arise.  However, it is important they never share any identifying information which can include the name of the  asylum seekers, the judge, officer, or representing attorney.
Frequently during the process (at interviews at the asylum office or during attorney-client meetings for example), non-professional “interpreters” are used.  Attorneys and asylum officers should remind those interpreters of their duties in respect to confidentiality. 
When an asylum seeker understands the importance that the court, USCIS, and attorneys place on confidentiality, asylum seekers can be reassured and thus feel more comfortable disclosing all the details of their case, making the process work better for all involved.

Continue reading