Last time, I wrote about the Ombudsman’s 2023 report and the state of USCIS. Today, we’ll look at what the report says about how USCIS is responding to its many challenges. (more…)
In June of this year, the USCIS Ombudsman released its annual report, where it “details the urgent systemic issues affecting U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services… and identifies potential solutions to resolve these problems.” This year, the agency’s various backlogs loom large in the 120-page report. Making progress on those backlogs has been difficult for various reasons, including the state of the world: “Global upheaval, political confrontations, and climate issues created populations in need of temporary protection, and the United States took on its share of assistance to these populations.” While the Ombudsman applauds the Biden Administration’s efforts to help those in need, it notes that other asylum seekers and immigrants have been harmed by diverting resources that might otherwise have been available to complete their cases.
To be honest, I have avoided reading the report until now because it is simply too depressing. We know the basic problem: Too many people and not enough resources. We also know that Congress–which controls the nation’s purse strings–is not likely to approve any additional funding, especially while the House of Representatives remains in Republican hands.
As I reviewed the report, I found myself feeling some sympathy for USCIS, which is being asked to do too much with too little. But the key word in that last sentence is “some,” as I also feel that–at least with regards to affirmative asylum cases–the agency has utterly failed to take bold and creative steps to alleviate the ever-increasing backlog.
Here, we’ll discuss the Ombudsman’s findings and try to explicate what is happening at one of the U.S. government’s most troubled agencies. (more…)
In a recent letter to USCIS, 61 members of Congress have expressed their “concern” about delays at our nation’s Asylum Offices. The letter calls on USCIS to prioritize the oldest cases for interviews and asks a number of pointed questions about the reasons behind the agency’s interminable delays.
Anyone familiar with the asylum system knows why this letter was necessary–approximately 800,000 cases (representing well over 1 million people) are stuck in the affirmative asylum backlog. More than 180,000 of these cases have been pending for five years or more, and some applicants have been waiting for their interview since 2015 with no real prospect of being interviewed any time soon. (more…)
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the organization that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts, has released new data about asylum grant rates by country of origin. While EOIR deserves credit for trying to be more transparent, it is difficult to know what to make of these numbers. They are confusing, poorly organized, and–for lack of a better word–strange.
Here, we’ll take a look at the data and try to parse some meaning from EOIR’s madness. (more…)
It is the job of a lawyer to learn about your situation and then advise you of your options. You want to know, “If I do X, what will happen?” In many areas of the law, attorneys can provide this type of advice. If you rob a bank and get caught, you will go to jail. If you sign a contract and then breach your agreement, you will be liable for damages. If you fail to pay taxes, you will face criminal and civil penalties.
But in immigration law–and particularly in asylum law–it is often impossible to provide precise advice. The unfortunate fact is that asylum seekers must live with significant uncertainty. (more…)
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) surveyed more than 300 immigration lawyers (including yours truly) about asylum and has issued a new report with findings and recommendations: High-Stakes Asylum: How Long an Asylum Case Takes and How We Can Do Better.
The report makes some useful suggestions for improving the system, and it is well worth a look. It also has some significant flaws (at least in my opinion). As I see it, though, the biggest problem–as usual for these types of things–is how to prevent the U.S. government from simply ignoring the report and continuing on its merry way. (more…)
As you probably know, asylum applicants often wait years for their interview or court hearing. Some cases get stronger with time, but most do not. Sometimes, country conditions improve or change in a way that makes it more difficult to win asylum. Other times, the asylum laws or regulations change in a way that is unfavorable. More commonly, the very fact that an applicant has been away from her home country for a long time makes it seem less likely that she will be harmed if she returns. The Immigration Judge or Asylum Officer will want to know why anyone back home would still remember you, let alone want to harm you, after so much time outside the country.
If you’ve been waiting for a long time for your Asylum Office interview or Immigration Court hearing, and you think your case has become weaker, what can you do? (more…)
If you are one of the 3+ million people waiting for your case in Immigration Court or at the Asylum Office, you might ask yourself, Why is my case taking so long? Of course you know the basic reason: Too many cases and too few people to work on those cases. But why is the system designed this way? Why can’t we have enough Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers so that cases are processed in a timely manner?
Here’s my theory: The system was purposefully created to make you wait. (more…)
Question: Who do you think is more likely to deny an asylum case, an Immigration Judge appointed by a Republican president or an Immigration Judge appointed by a Democratic president?
As far as I can tell, no one has ever researched this question before; so our team of statisticians here at The Asylumist spent the last few months crunching the numbers, and we now have our answer. If you’re like me, you might find their conclusion a bit surprising. (more…)
Here’s one thing that seems clear about the management at EOIR–the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the office that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts–no one who works there has ever represented a noncitizen in Immigration Court. How do I know? If the leadership at EOIR had any experience in court or with clients, they would not be implementing so many misguided, destructive, and ineffective policies that are doing great harm to immigrants, their attorneys, and even to DHS attorneys (the prosecutors in court).
The latest dumb idea involves an effort to administratively close cases where the respondent (the noncitizen in Immigration Court) may have some temporary or permanent relief available from USCIS. (more…)
The Associated Press recently reported that DHS will implement a “limited experiment” to provide detained migrants at the border with “access to legal counsel.” The new approach will start with a “tiny number of migrants,” and then perhaps expand from there. DHS is partnering with an as-yet-unnamed organization to supply the attorneys, who will help with credible fear interviews (initial evaluations of asylum eligibility for newly arriving migrants). The program is part of DHS’s efforts to accommodate the end of Title 42, which had restricted the number of people eligible to seek asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, and which is expected to wrap up in a few weeks.
This new “limited experiment” calls to mind the ongoing effort by advocates to create an immigration public defender’s service, which would provide everyone in Immigration Court access to a lawyer. These efforts have not made much progress, and currently, very few noncitizens in Immigration Court receive a government-appointed attorney.
Here, I want to discuss the benefits of universal representation for asylum seekers, including those in court and at the Asylum Office. I also want to suggest an alternative to representation by lawyers, who are expensive and relatively scarce. (more…)
USCIS recently released some new information to Congress about the affirmative asylum backlog, and–surprise, surprise–the news is not good. The backlog continues to grow at a record-setting pace, meaning that under the agency’s last-in, first-out (LIFO) policy where new cases receive priority over old cases, those waiting for an interview are falling further and further behind. Worse, USCIS has indicated that they do not have the resources to reduce the backlog, and they don’t expect to receive those resources any time soon. (more…)
Here’s a common situation: A person files for asylum at the Asylum Office and her case is pending for years. During that time, she marries someone who does not have immigration status in the U.S., and she wants to add her spouse to her pending asylum application. And here’s another (less common) scenario: A person has a pending asylum application and the person’s child arrives in the United States and wants to join their parent’s case. Today, we’ll discuss how to add a dependent to an existing asylum case. (more…)
If you follow tech news, you probably know about Chat-GPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) program that has been writing college essays, designing buildings, and even crafting condolence emails after mass shootings. Just last week, we learned that this program “can now outperform most law school graduates on the bar exam, the grueling two-day test aspiring attorneys must pass to practice law in the United States.” The test consists of multiple choice and essay questions, and Chat-GPT’s score placed it “in the 90th percentile of actual test takers,” which “is enough to be admitted to practice law in most states.”
Perhaps in an effort to make lawyers feel better, the “National Conference of Bar Examiners, which designs the multiple choice section, said… that attorneys have unique skills gained through education and experience that AI cannot currently match.” “Currently” being the operative word.
While I do not expect to lose my job in the immediate future, I can see areas of immigration law where AI would be able to assist attorneys and increase efficiency. And I can also imagine a future where AI takes over many, if not all, tasks performed by attorneys, Asylum Officers, and Immigration Judges. (more…)
I recently saw a shocking statistic: 76% of cases denied by the Asylum Office and referred to Immigration Court were granted by Immigration Judges. If this number is accurate (and the source–TRAC Immigration–has always been very reliable), it means that IJs essentially overrule Asylum Officer denials in 3 out of 4 cases. Put another way, Immigration Judges are finding that Asylum Officers make the wrong decision in most of their cases. Can this really be true? What’s going on here? (more…)