A new report, Lives in Limbo: How the Boston Asylum Office Fails Asylum Seekers, raises concerns about the Boston Asylum Office and about the affirmative asylum system in general. Here, we’ll discuss some of the report’s findings and some suggested improvements to the system. I want to focus on one particular suggestion in the report, which has been on my mind lately: Whether asylum applications can be approved largely “on the papers,” with only a brief interview. But first, let’s take a look at the report’s main points. (more…)
If you are a regular or even occasional reader of this humble blog, you know my opinion of the affirmative asylum system–it is a disaster. There are currently more than 435,000 pending cases, representing upwards of 800,000 people. Some applicants have been waiting for their interviews for five, six, seven or more years, separated from spouses and children and living in existential uncertainty. Now, it seems that we are on the verge of a perfect storm, which will throw tens of thousands of new cases into the system at the same time as resources will be diverted away from affirmative cases. These changes will result in some winners and some losers. Here, we’ll discuss these new developments and how they might affect the asylum process. (more…)
Let’s imagine a not-so-hypothetical scenario: You filed for asylum at the Asylum Office, and your case has been pending for years without an interview. Or here’s another one: You finally had an interview at the Asylum Office, but you have been waiting months or years without a decision. Today and in an up-coming post, we’ll talk about the most effective ways to make an inquiry in these situations. (more…)
Due to the pandemic, many Immigration Court hearings now take place via WebEx, which is similar to Zoom. There are certainly disadvantages to presenting an asylum case by video. It’s more difficult to relate to the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), for instance. And it’s not easy to submit additional evidence at the last minute. On the other hand, in the words of John Adams, “Every problem is an opportunity in disguise!” In our case, WebEx presents some interesting new opportunities.
Having now done a couple WebEx hearings, I have been thinking of how to use the new service to my clients’ advantage. Below are some ideas that I have yet to implement, but which could assure victory, even in the most difficult case. If we try any of these strategies in my office, I’ll be sure to let you know how things turn out… (more…)
In a prior post, we discussed asylum-seeker dependents at the Asylum Office. We’ll finish that discussion here, and also talk about dependents in Immigration Court, where there are some unique issues to be aware of. (more…)
Asylum seekers may include their spouse and unmarried, minor (under 21-years old) children as dependents on their asylum case, as long as the dependents are physically present in the United States. Here, we’ll discuss issues related to dependents at the Asylum Office. In a future, post, we’ll discuss dependents in Immigration Court, as there are some differences. Let’s get right to it. (more…)
This article is by Andrea Barron, the advocacy program manager at the Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition International, based in Washington, DC. The article was originally published in the Washington Post.
Genet Lire Dobamo was a 17-year-old elite sprinter with the Ethiopian national team when she defected at Dulles International Airport in 2014, terrified of returning to her native Ethiopia. She held Ethiopia’s national title for the 400-meter race and had an excellent chance of representing her country in the 2016 Olympics. But Dobamo had been severely beaten by police for opposing Ethiopia’s one-party dictatorship and was frightened of being tortured again or even killed if she returned home.
She applied for asylum in March 2015 and was featured in a Washington Post story on elite Ethiopian runners seeking asylum in the United States. The Post reporter said the asylum process can take “months, sometimes more than a year.” Six years later, Dobamo has still not been interviewed by an asylum officer at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), part of the Department of Homeland Security. (more…)
For “respondents” (non-citizens in removal proceedings) and their lawyers, Individual Hearings in Immigration Court are a big deal. Evidence must be gathered. Affidavits have to be prepared, checked, and re-checked. Witnesses must be identified, convinced to attend the hearing, and prepared for trial. Respondents practice their testimony. In most cases, the noncitizen has been waiting for many months or years for the trial date. The result of the trial determines whether the applicant can remain in the United States or must leave. When a respondent receives asylum, he is permitted to stay in the U.S. If he loses, he may be deported to a country where he faces danger. In many cases, respondents have family members here or overseas who are counting on them, and the outcome of the case affects the family members as well as the respondent. All of this provokes anxiety and anticipation. In short, Individual Hearings are life-changing events that profoundly effect respondents and their families.
So what happens when the Individual Hearing is canceled? (more…)
On September 24, 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that David Neal would take over as Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), the organization that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).
Director Neal was Chairman of the BIA, from 2009 to 2019, when he was apparently forced out by the Trump Administration. Mr. Neal also served as Vice Chairman of the BIA, Chief Immigration Judge, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, Immigration Judge (“IJ”), and Assistant to the Director. Indeed, he comes to the Directorship with probably more and diverse EOIR experience than any prior director. To top it off, he has a Master of Divinity from Harvard University (and of course a JD, but those are a dime a dozen).
The new Director will certainly need to draw on his past experience–and possibly seek divine intervention–as the agency he is now helming is a real mess. Currently, there are more than 1.4 million cases in the Immigration Court backlog. I have not found recent data on the BIA backlog, but in April 2020, it stood at 70,183 cases. To address the court backlog, EOIR is staffing up–from 535 judges to a projected 734 by the end of the current fiscal year (September 30, 2022). We are also seeing an increase in online and training resources for respondents (noncitizens in immigration proceedings) and practitioners.
Even during his short tenure, Director Neal has begun to take some positive steps. Aside from the new resources, EOIR has ended case completion quotas for Immigration Judge and also signaled a willingness to work with the National Association of Immigration Judges (the judges’ union), which the prior Administration had tried to de-certify.
These are encouraging signs, and hopefully we will also start to see improvements related more directly to respondents’ cases in Immigration Court and the BIA. Luckily for David Neal, I am here to offer my own suggestions (and who doesn’t love unsolicited advice?). These are my ten great ideas for EOIR– (more…)
Maybe you’ve heard this old joke–
One night, a policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what he has lost. The man says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if the drunk is sure he lost the keys here. The drunk replies, no, he lost them in the park. Surprised, the policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, “This is where the light is.”
Asylum interviews these days remind me of this joke. We spend–literally–hours sifting through testimony and evidence, as the Officer goes on a fishing expedition for fraud, even in cases where it’s quite clear that no fraud exists. Why is this happening? How can you prepare for these questions? (more…)
What’s it like to practice immigration law these days?
For a case in Immigration Court, we write the affidavit, gather evidence, get witness statements, research country conditions, organize everything, copy it, and submit copies to the court and to DHS within the 30-day deadline. We then hold practice sessions with the client and witnesses. A few days before the trial date, we check the online system. The case is canceled. There is no new date. There is no explanation.
We file an application for an asylee’s Green Card. The case takes forever. The client moves. We file a change of address and get an online confirmation. Finally, the client receives an online notice: The Green Card has been mailed and delivered. But not to his current address. USCIS has sent the card somewhere else. Maybe to his old address, but who knows? He does not have it, and requests to re-deliver the card have no effect. (more…)
Even before the Taliban took control of Afghanistan, that country was suffering a humanitarian disaster. In 2020, about 2.5 million Afghans were living outside their country as refugees; another 3.5 million were displaced within Afghanistan. In August 2021, the Taliban occupied Kabul, which triggered one of the largest air evacuations in history–over 124,000 people were flown out of Hamid Karzai International Airport.
Where all these people will go remains an open questions. As usual, Afghanistan’s neighbors are hosting the large majority of refugees, with more than 1.4 million in Pakistan and about 780,000 in Iran. Significant numbers of people are also in Europe and Turkey.
The United States is also accepting Afghans, and we are currently in the process of receiving about 50,000 people for permanent resettlement. Given our long involvement in Afghanistan, and that many Afghans relied on us and assisted our efforts, it seems only right that we protect those in need. The problem (or, more accurately, one problem) is that for most Afghan evacuees, there is no legal mechanism for them to remain permanently in the U.S., and so their legal status in our country is uncertain. (more…)
This summer, pro-immigrant Representative Gerry Connelly (D-Virginia) wrote to USCIS inquiring about the affirmative asylum backlog. The USCIS response is instructive.
First, USCIS notes that, “The backlog is the result of the mathematical reality that USCIS receives more cases than it can adjudicate given current resources.” That much is true. But here’s the money shot, which is where I part ways with the Biden Administration’s reasoning–
LIFO is a critical tool in controlling non-meritorious or fraudulent applications filed to take advantage of the backlog in order to obtain work authorization. But for LIFO, the backlog would doubtlessly be worse.
The evidence for this supposition is weak, and as I view things, based more on coincidence than causation. While the number of new cases decreased under LIFO, other factors–such as the Trump Administration’s Muslim travel ban, “extreme vetting” for visa applicants, and the coronavirus pandemic–better explain the reduction in new asylum filings. Here, we’ll examine how LIFO affects the backlog, and why I think the agency is wrong to conclude that the last-in, first-out system helps prevent fraud. (more…)
In April, I wrote about our efforts to lobby Congress for help with the affirmative asylum backlog. Those efforts have finally born some fruit. Last week, forty Democratic members of Congress wrote a letter to Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and Ur Jaddou, the Director of USCIS.
In the letter, the Members of Congress express their concern about the affirmative asylum backlog, which currently stands at well over 400,000 cases. The letter notes that many people in the backlog have already suffered severe trauma in their home countries, and expresses particular concern for “those who have languished in the backlog for extended periods of time—some close to seven years.” Many of these applicants are separated from immediate family members and have not seen their spouses or children for years.
Unless it passes a new law, Congress does not have the authority to order DHS or USCIS to take particular actions. However, this new letter is significant in that–for the first time–Congress is “recommending” certain actions by the agency to address the backlog. I imagine such recommendations must be taken seriously, given that Congress does ultimately control funding for DHS and, to a lesser extent, USCIS (USCIS is largely funded by user fees). Hopefully, the agencies will take a look at these recommendations and make some changes to help those who have been waiting the longest. The main recommendations are as follows– (more…)