Fixing Asylum Part 3: The Asylum Office

by Jason Dzubow

According to the most recent data, as of “July 31, 2020, USCIS had 370,948 asylum applications, on behalf of 589,187 aliens, pending final adjudication.” “Over 94% of these pending applications [about 348,691 cases] are awaiting an interview by an asylum officer.” The remaining cases–approximately 22,257–have been interviewed and are waiting for a decision.

In terms of resources, the most recent information I could find is from May 2019. At that time, there were 763 Asylum Officers and 148 supervisory officers. While the majority of these staff members was devoted to interviewing affirmative asylum seekers, “over 200 officers” were assigned to conduct credible fear interviews at the border (a credible fear interview or CFI is an initial evaluation of asylum eligibility). Assuming everything remains the same (meaning that there are about 563 officers available for affirmative cases) and assuming each officer conducts eight interviews per week, it would take about 15 months to get through the entire backlog–if no new cases enter the system.

Realistically, though, new cases are continuously being filed, Asylum Officers probably can’t adjudicate eight cases per week for 52 weeks a year, and–given the mess at the Southern border and President Elect Biden’s plan to send more resources to that region–it is likely that many more than 200 officers will be assigned to CFIs (which will make them unavailable for “regular” affirmative asylum interviews). In short, even if the pandemic magically disappears, it seems unlikely that we can get through the backlog anytime soon. We are today facing the same problem that has dogged the asylum system since at least 2013: There are too many cases and not enough officers.

So what can be done?

Hire More Officers: One obvious solution is to hire more Asylum Officers. While the President Elect has not indicated whether or not he would hire more AOs, he has set forth an ambitious humanitarian agenda for the U.S.-Mexico border, and it seems impossible that he could fulfill that goal without hiring many more Asylum Officers. Of course, this would cost money, and it is unclear whether USCIS has the means to pay for more officers or whether Congress would be willing to increase the agency’s budget.

Even if there is no additional money available, there are steps Mr. Biden can take to improve the asylum system.  

More Efficient Scheduling and Shorter Interviews: The data I found (pre-pandemic) shows that roughly 8% of asylum applicants are “no shows” for their interviews and another 15% cancel their interviews (what percentage of these are rescheduled, I do not know). This makes sense, given the long gap between filing for asylum and attending an interview: People leave the U.S. or find other ways to obtain status here; others fail to update their address and so never receive notice of the interview. To mitigate this problem, Asylum Offices schedule more interviews than they have the capacity to conduct, with the expectation that some applicants will not appear. This seems to me a huge waste of energy. Why not call applicants a few weeks in advance to determine whether they intend to appear for their interview? This should be done after the interview notice is mailed out, and that notice should indicate that the applicant will receive a call from the Asylum Office. Applicants who fail to respond to the phone call can be rescheduled and sent a warning letter by mail. Those who still do not respond can then be referred directly to Immigration Court. Where possible, the calls and notices should be in the applicant’s native language.

There are other benefits to calling applicants prior to the interview: They can be reminded to submit all evidence in advance, and can be queried about what language they will speak at the interview. They can also be told to review the I-589 form and determine in advance what updates and corrections are needed. Better yet, the asylum interview notice can include a form to update the I-589, which is often submitted years before the interview. While not all applicants will be able to complete such a form on their own, many can, and this will save significant time at the interview.

Another way to save time at the interview would be to include a copy of the “bar” questions along with the interview notice. The “bar” questions determine whether a person is barred from receiving asylum (because they are criminals or terrorists, for example). Why not require applicants to review these questions ahead of time, and then certify at the interview that they read and understood each question? Most people will answer “no” to all the bar questions, and if the officer has specific concerns, she can raise those at the interview. Also, while we’re on the subject of bar questions, why do the officers need to ask these questions to children? I’ve seen officers question dependent children as young as three or four years old about whether they are terrorists. It’s just plain silly (though it can be entertaining). We would save a lot of time and trouble if parents could answer these questions for their minor children, or at least for children under a certain age–say 14 or 15.

LIFO vs. FIFO: Another issue related to scheduling is The Great LIFO-FIFO Debate–whether cases should be interviewed in the order received (first-in, first-out or FIFO) or whether the newest cases should receive priority (last-in, first-out or LIFO). All Asylum Offices are currently operating under the LIFO system. The logic is that interviewing new cases first will deter fraudulent asylum seekers, since they won’t be guaranteed a years-long wait for their interview (during which time they can live and work in the U.S.). The Asylum Division believes LIFO is working, as there was a 30% drop in new filings after it was implemented. However, I hope they will revisit this finding. My sense is that any decrease in filings was unrelated to the LIFO policy and instead came about for other reasons, such as fewer people arriving in the U.S. due to stricter visa requirements.

Also, from the perspective of asylum seekers, LIFO is very unfair. Old cases are given the lowest priority, meaning many people will (seemingly) never get to the front of the line. These applicants are facing severe hardships, including separation from family and endless uncertainty. At a minimum, a certain percentage of officers should be assigned to work on backlog cases, starting with the oldest. Better yet, we should return to FIFO and the Asylum Office Scheduling Bulletin, so we will have a more orderly and predictable process for scheduling interviews.

Create Rules for Expediting: One final point about scheduling interviews: We need a more formal system for expediting cases. Currently, it is possible to expedite, but there really are no rules about who is eligible to expedite or about what constitutes a valid reason to expedite. The predictable result is that many people try to expedite, which wastes Asylum Office staff time and also makes it more difficult for the most needy people to expedite their cases. There should be a national policy with publicized criteria about who is eligible for expedition. In my person opinion, the first priority should be people who are separated from their family members, especially minor children. For me, a distant second is a person with a documented mental or physical health issue. Until the Asylum Offices can expedite all the people in these two categories, I see no reason to allow for any other category of applicant to request expedited processing.

Premium Processing: A more radical idea to address the backlog–and one that I’ve been pushing for a while now–is premium processing for asylum seekers. Premium processing already exists for several USCIS forms, and allows an applicant to pay an additional fee (currently between $1,500 and $2,500) for faster processing of her case. Affirmative asylum seekers–in contrast to refugees–have paid their own way to the United States, and so presumably, many of them could afford an additional fee for premium processing. Also, while the idea of asylum seekers paying for their cases may seem unpalatable, the Trump Administration has already implemented a non-waivable $50 fee for all asylum applicants (as of now, that fee has been blocked by a federal court), and so the taboo of paying for humanitarian protection has already been broken. Thus, as I see it, there is no valid objection to implementing premium processing for asylum seekers, and–given the overwhelming humanitarian need–it is a solution whose time has come.

How would premium processing help? For those who pay, their cases would be interviewed more quickly. How quickly, I do not know, but premium processing for other USCIS forms is currently 15 days. I doubt that time frame would be realistic for an asylum case, but perhaps 60 or 90 days would be achievable. Even those who cannot pay would benefit, as the infusion of money into the system would benefit all applicants. An added benefit from the government’s viewpoint would be that faster processing would–if we accept the LIFO logic–help discourage fraudulent applications. So premium processing is a win all around: For the applicants who pay, for those who do not pay, and for the U.S. government.

Eliminate the Asylum Office: A final idea–perhaps the most radical of all–is to eliminate the Asylum Office altogether, at least for most cases. Under the current system, an applicant files an asylum case, and if he loses, his case is usually referred to Immigration Court where an Immigration Judge reviews the case de novo and issues a brand new decision. As an advocate, I am grateful for a second chance to present my clients’ cases. But in terms of “the system,” this type of redundancy is not very efficient. One solution might be to shift all asylum cases where the applicant is out-of-status to the Immigration Court. Or maybe just leave vulnerable applicants–such as minors–at the Asylum Office. While this idea has been floating around for years, it is still unclear whether it would result in more or less efficiency. In any event, given the current mess, nothing should be off the table, and the idea of (mostly) eliminating the Asylum Office might warrant further study.

For the sake of asylum seekers and their families, and for the integrity of our humanitarian immigration system, we need major changes to the affirmative asylum system. Perhaps some of these ideas can contribute to that effort.

Continue reading

166 Comments

On Appeal at the BIA

by Jason Dzubow

If you lose your case in Immigration Court, you can appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Conversely, if you win your case and the DHS attorney (the prosecutor) is unhappy with that outcome, DHS can appeal. Here, we’ll talk about what happens during an appeal to the BIA.

Once the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) makes a decision, the parties have 30 days to file an appeal to the BIA. The IJ should indicate on his decision when the appeal is due, meaning the appeal must be received by the BIA on or before the due date. Otherwise, the IJ’s decision is final and the case is over. Appeals are filed using Form EOIR-26. The fee is currently $110 (check to “United States Department of Justice”) or you can request a fee waiver.

The EOIR-26 is the notice of appeal. On the form, you must indicate the reason(s) why you are appealing. Here, you have to be specific, as indicated in the form instructions. If not, the BIA could dismiss your appeal on that basis alone. When I file an EOIR-26, I list the reasons for the appeal and I also note that we “reserve the right to raise additional arguments in our brief.” Next, you have to check a box indicating whether or not you want oral argument. The BIA rarely holds oral arguments (where the attorneys come before Board Members to discuss the case), and so whether you check yes or no probably doesn’t make much difference. But if you have a burning desire to present your case in person, check “yes” and maybe you’ll be invited to Falls Church for an oral argument. The EOIR-26 also requires you to indicate whether you will file a brief. A “brief” is a legal argument explaining why the IJ’s decision should be overturned. While you can file the brief and the Notice of Appeal together, it is more common to file the brief later on. Be aware that if you check “yes” to the brief, you will be required to file a brief, and if you fail to do so, your appeal will be dismissed.

BIA Board Members listen to a rare oral argument.

The EOIR-26 should be mailed to the BIA at the address specified in the instructions. Include with the appeal a copy of the IJ’s decision. If you have a lawyer, the lawyer should include an EOIR-27, appearance of counsel form. You have to send a copy of the entire packet to the DHS attorney’s office (the office of the “prosecutor” who litigated your case before the IJ). You can find their address here.

After the EOIR-26 is filed, you will receive a receipt. You are allowed to remain in the United States while the appeal is pending. You can also renew your Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”) while the appeal is pending.

If you indicated on the EOIR-26 that you plan to file a brief, the BIA will send a briefing schedule. How long it takes to get the briefing schedule is hard to predict. For a detained case, it may take a month or two, but for a non-detained case, it probably takes anywhere from six to 18 months. Along with the briefing schedule, you will receive a transcript of the Immigration Court case. This document contains all the discussions that took place at each appearance before the IJ. Depending on the case, it is usually very helpful to have the transcript, as oral statements made in court are often relevant to the argument you will make on appeal. For this reason, we do not submit a brief when we file the EOIR-26. We wait until we have the transcript and can then submit a more complete–and hopefully more convincing–argument.

Once the briefing schedule arrives, you have 21 days to file the brief (why they give so little time to write the brief, I do not know, but I complained about it here). You can ask for an additional 21 days, but you have to articulate a reason why you need more time.

The brief is the heart of the appeal. In it, you explain why the IJ erred and ask the BIA to overrule the court’s decision. You can see a sample brief here. 

Some types of IJ decisions are easier to overturn than others. If the judge denied your case based on credibility (in other words, because the IJ thinks you lied), the BIA will only overturn the decision if it is clearly erroneous. On the other hand, if the IJ found you credible, but determined that you did not meet the legal standard for asylum, the BIA reviews the decision “de novo,” meaning that the Board will make its own decision and will not defer to the reasoning of the IJ. Put another way, the standard of review for factual errors is high and for legal errors is lower, and so in general, it is easier to win an appeal where you are arguing that the IJ made an error in interpreting the law rather than an error assessing credibility.

All that said, it is difficult to win any appeal at the BIA. That has always been the case, but the situation got worse in 2019, when the Trump Administration elevated six Immigration Judges known for their high denial rates to the Board. As a result, the Board is even more unlikely to overturn an IJ’s negative decision. Nevertheless, it can sometimes happen, and if you are not satisfied with the results in Immigration Court, you have the right to appeal. 

After you file the brief, the wait time for a decision is unpredictable. Cases where the non-citizen is detained are faster–maybe another one to three months (on top of the time you already waited before the briefing schedule was issued). Non-detained cases are much slower, and can take anywhere from six months to a year or more.

Finally, you will receive a decision. Typically, either the BIA dismisses the appeal, meaning that the IJ’s decision stands, or remands the case back to the judge to remedy any errors and correct the decision (and hopefully grant relief, but this is not guaranteed and varies by case).

If you do not like the BIA’s decision, you can file a petition for review to the federal appeals court with jurisdiction over your case. Filing such a petition does not stop ICE from deporting you, though you can (and should) ask the federal court to issue an order “staying” (preventing) your removal while the federal appeal is pending. Such cases are usually difficult to win, and they are procedurally complicated. You can learn more about litigating an immigration case in federal court here. From the federal appeals court, the next–and final–step is the United State Supreme Court. Very few cases reach that level, and so usually if the BIA is not the end of the road, the federal appeals court is.

Unfortunately, the entire immigration system is legally complex, and that is particularly true of BIA cases, where legal arguments may not be apparent to a non-lawyer. If you have a case before the Board, your best bet is to find a decent lawyer to help you. You can learn more about the whole process in the BIA Practice Manual. You may also be interested in the BIA Pro Bono Project, which matches attorneys with BIA cases (usually for noncitizens who are detained). Finally, there is this website, which helps non-represented applicants find a pro bono (free) lawyer. Despite all the difficulties, it is still possible to win at the BIA, and if you are not satisfied with the IJ’s decision, you can appeal and seek a better result.

Continue reading

114 Comments

Book Review: My Trials by Judge Paul Grussendorf

by Jason Dzubow

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.

A page from My Trials, chosen completely at random.

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.

Continue reading

116 Comments

Expert Reports in Asylum Cases

by Jason Dzubow

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.

The standard uniform for an expert witness.

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. 

Continue reading

111 Comments

A New Rule for Interpreters at the Asylum Office (+ an Update on the Backlog)

by Jason Dzubow

Last week, USCIS announced a new rule for interpreters at Asylum Office interviews. Starting immediately, most asylum applicants should not bring their own interpreter to the interview, as had been the practice up until now. Instead, USCIS will provide an interpreter by telephone for most languages. The reason for the change is, of course, the coronavirus pandemic. This new rule will be in effect until at least March 22, 2021.

There are a few interesting tidbits contained in the rule’s preface, and here, I want to discuss those, as well as the effect of the new rule, plus some tips on working with telephonic interpreters.

One tidbit is statistical. To justify the new rule, USCIS cites some numbers indicating how serious the pandemic is. As of July 31, 2020, “there were approximately 17,106,007 cases of COVID-19 globally, resulting in approximately 668,910 deaths; approximately 4,405,932 cases have been identified in the United States, with new cases being reported daily, and approximately 150,283 reported deaths due to the disease.” This grim assessment by the U.S. government itself seems largely at odds with the picture painted by President Trump, who has pretty consistently underplayed the severity of the pandemic (at least in public, if not to Bob Woodward).

When using a telephonic interpreter, be sure to speak loudly into the phone.

Another interesting tidbit relates to the affirmative asylum backlog. Since the advent of the Trump Administration, the Asylum Office has become more tight lipped about its data, and so we receive fewer updates about the backlog (or anything else). But according to the new rule, as of “July 31, 2020, USCIS had 370,948 asylum applications, on behalf of 589,187 aliens, pending final adjudication.” “Over 94% of these pending applications are awaiting an interview by an asylum officer.” This means that as of July 31, the current affirmative asylum backlog was about 348,691 cases (meaning 348,691 cases were filed but not yet interviewed). Contrast this with the last time USCIS posted statistical information about asylum cases, which was for the period ending on September 30, 2019. At that time, the backlog stood at 339,836 cases. If all this data is correct (and I am never completely confident in the information we receive from USCIS these days), the backlog has grown by about 9,000 cases between October 1, 2019 and July 31, 2020.

If we believe these numbers, this means that the backlog grew faster in FY2019 than it did in FY2020. This may or may not be surprising, depending on your perspective. On the one hand, given that so few cases are being interviewed this year thanks to the pandemic, we might have expected the backlog to have grown more quickly. On the other hand, given that fewer asylum seekers are making it to the U.S., we might have expected the backlog to grow more slowly.

Finally, with regard to statistics, USCIS’s numbers indicate that 22,257 cases have been interviewed and are awaiting a decision. This seems like a lot to me, especially since Asylum Officers are interviewing fewer people because of the pandemic, and you’d think they’d have more time to finish cases that have already been interviewed.

Turning to the new rule itself, basically it means that when you go to an asylum interview, the government will provide you with a contract interpreter, who will attend the interview by phone. According to the new rule, “contract interpreters are carefully vetted and tested [and they] pass rigorous background checks as well as meet a high standard of competency.” In my experience, the contract interpreters are quite good, and I have never had a case where an interpreter caused a major problem. Prior to the new rule (and the coronavirus), applicants were required to bring their own interpreter, who assisted in person, while the contract interpreter monitored the interview by phone. Now, you are not allowed to bring your own interpreter, and you must use the telephonic interpreter.

Not all languages are covered by the new rule, but many are. USCIS contract interpreters are available for 47 languages. If your language is not on the list, you must bring your own interpreter.

If a contract interpreter is not available, the interview will be rescheduled and the delay will be attributed to USCIS for Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”) purposes (meaning that the Asylum Clock will not stop). On the flip side, if the applicant refuses to proceed with a USCIS contract interpreter, the Clock will stop, which will delay the EAD.

The new rule raises a few concerns. Probably the primary concern is whether asylum applicants will be comfortable with their interpreters. Will a woman who has been the victim of gender-based violence be comfortable if her interpreter is a man? I have heard anecdotally (and I believe it) that Asylum Officers are sensitive to this issue, and will check with the applicant before starting the interview. Also, if you prefer a male or female interpreter, you might ask in advance by emailing the Asylum Office before your interview. My sense is that the Asylum Office will do its best to accommodate such requests.

Another concern is that telephonic interpreters cannot as easily understand the applicant (or the Asylum Officer) and may not be able to convey emotion or nuance as well as they might if they were present in person. While I suspect that this is true, I think it is unlikely that missing such subtleties will make a difference in the outcome. Also, given the pandemic and the need for social distancing, it seems to me that we all need to make some adjustments.

All that said, how can you best work with a telephonic interpreter? Here are a few tips from a star interpreter, who has herself performed telephonic interpretations–

  • Keep your voice loud and clear. While this is important when working with on-site interpreters, it is even more important over the phone.
  • If you have a long statement, pause after a sentence or two so the interpreter can translate your words. After the interpreter is done, continue your response.
  • Don’t shuffle papers as you speak; you might as well stop talking because the interpreter will not be able to hear you.
  • Try not to talk over other people. The interpreter can only translate for one person at a time. Over the phone, it will be impossible for the interpreter to understand what is being said if people talk over each other. This could result in a statement by the applicant going unheard by the Asylum Officer–with potentially disastrous consequences.
  • Wait for the interpreter to finish interpreting before making another statement or asking a question.
  • If you don’t hear or can’t understand the interpreter, speak up!

All good advice to keep in mind at your interview.

Overall, my sense is that this new rule is reasonable and will hopefully allow more applicants to start attending interviews, while keeping everyone as safe as possible. 

Tip o’ the fedora to Professor Lindsay M. Harris, Director of the Immigration & Human Rights Clinic at the University of the District of Columbia, and interpreter extraordinaire Maria Raquel McFadden, for their contributions to this article.

Continue reading

91 Comments

Re-Thinking the Master Calendar Hearing in the Time of Coronavirus

by Jason Dzubow

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.

MCHs are no more efficient today than they were in olden times.

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. 

Continue reading

224 Comments

The Unbearable Lightness of BIA-ing, Ten Year Anniversary Edition

by Jason Dzubow

Way back in 2010, I did a blog post about the Board of Immigration Appeals, where I complained that the Board issues too few decisions and does not provide enough guidance to Immigration Judges. Ten years later, things are no better. In fact, based on the available data, the Board is publishing even fewer decisions these days than it did back in the late aughts. Here, we’ll take a look at the situation in 2010, and then review where things stand now.

Before we get to that, we have to answer a preliminary question: What is the Board of Immigration Appeals? According to the BIA Practice Manual—

The Board of Immigration Appeals is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws. The Board is responsible for applying the immigration and nationality laws uniformly throughout the United States. Accordingly, the Board has been given nationwide jurisdiction to review the orders of Immigration Judges and certain decisions made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and to provide guidance to the Immigration Judges, DHS, and others, through published decisions. The Board is tasked with resolving the questions before it in a manner that is timely, impartial, and consistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act and regulations, and to provide clear and uniform guidance to Immigration Judges, DHS, and the general public on the proper interpretation and administration of the Immigration and Nationality Act and its implementing regulations.

Having completed their one published decision for the year, some BIA Board Members take a well-earned rest.

In essence, the BIA is supposed to be the Supreme Court of immigration law. But because the Board issues so few published decisions, it is not fulfilling its duties to provide guidance or ensure that laws are applied uniformly throughout the country. This is not a recent problem.

If you look back at the data from a decade ago, you will see that in 2007, the BIA decide a total of 35,394 cases and had 45 published decisions. In 2008, it decided 38,369 cases and published 33 decisions, and in 2009, it decided 33,103 cases and published 34 decisions. This means that for every 1,000 cases the Board decides, it publishes about 1 case. Looked at another way, during 2007, 2008, and 2009, the Board had about 15 Members (judges on the BIA are called Board Members). This means that in its most prolific year (2007), each Board Member would have had to publish three cases. I’m told that publishing a case is a real production, but even so, three cases per year? That seems pretty weak. The not-very-surprising result is that the Board is not providing the guidance that Immigration Judges need, and this contributes to a situation where different adjudicators are interpreting the law in widely inconsistent ways.

Fast forward 10 year and the situation is no better. In FY2016, the Board decided 33,241 cases and in FY2017, it decided 31,820 cases. In each year, the Board published just 27 decisions. In FY2018, the Board decided 29,788 cases and published 38 decisions, and in FY2019, the BIA published 22 decisions (EOIR has not released data about the number of cases adjudicated by the Board in FY2019). Indeed, in 2018 and 2019, the situation is even worse than these numbers suggest. That’s because in 2018, of the 38 published BIA decisions, 15 were actually decided by the Attorney General (meaning only 23 were decided by the BIA). In 2019, the AG published six cases, meaning that the Board itself published a paltry 16 decision, or–given the expanded number of Board Members–less than one published decision per Member.

Let’s digress for one moment to discuss the difference between an Attorney General decision and a BIA decision. The BIA derives its decision-making authority from the Attorney General. This means that the AG has power to decide immigration appeals, but he has given that authority to the specialists on the Board, who presumably know more about immigration law than their boss. However, because decision-making power ultimately comes from the AG, he can “certify” a case to himself and then issue a decision, which has precedential authority over Immigration Judges and over the Board itself. This means that if the Board issues a decision that the AG does not like, he can change it. Prior to the Trump Administration, AGs generally deferred to the Board and rarely certified cases to themselves for decisions. In the last two years of the Obama Administration, for example, the AG issued a total of three published decisions, two in 2015 and one in 2016, as compared to 21 AG decisions in 2018 and 2019 (to be fair, the Trump Administration did not issue any AG decisions in 2017). The main reason for the AG to issue decisions is to more forcefully implement the current Administration’s immigration agenda. Many who work in the field oppose this type of politicization of the immigration law, and organizations such as the National Association of Immigration Judges (the judges’ union) have been pushing for an independent court system.

Aside from politicization of the law, one result of the AG’s more active role in issuing decisions has been to sideline the BIA. I imagine this is not good for morale. Essentially, the “Supreme Court of Immigration Law” has been relegated to deciding unpublished decisions, which contribute little to improving the overall practice of law.

In any event, it has always surprised me how few decisions the BIA publishes. Chapter 1 of the BIA Practice Manual provides: “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.” Frankly, it is difficult to believe that fewer than one case in one thousand satisfies these criteria. As I wrote in 2010–

Although it might be more work over the short term, if the Board published more frequently, Immigration Judge 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.

All this remains true. But after three years of the Trump Administration appointing Board Members, many of whom are considered hostile to immigrants, perhaps now is not the time to complain about too few published decisions. Maybe. But I still think there exists a desperate need for guidance and consistency, and even the “unfriendly” Board Members are more inclined to follow the law than our current AG. In addition, there are many mundane, non-political issues that simply need deciding (such as this recent BIA decision). Despite the more hostile make-up of the Board, I still believe–as I believed ten years ago–that the BIA should embrace its role as “the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws” and publish more decisions.

Continue reading

94 Comments

Asylum Offices and USCIS Will Start Reopening Next Week (Maybe)

by Jason Dzubow

As you might have noticed, USCIS offices have been closed for all in-person appointments–including asylum interviews and biometric appointments–since March 18, 2020. Now, USCIS has announced that it “is preparing some domestic offices to reopen and resume non-emergency public services on or after June 4.” What does this mean? What will the “new normal” look like at USCIS? Are we all going to die?

The first thing I notice about the USCIS announcement is that it is kind-of vague. “Some domestic offices” will reopen? I am not sure what this means. I suppose we will have to wait and see which offices actually reopen. Also, “on or after June 4” could be next week or it could be in 2099. In any event, it seems clear that USCIS is trying to get things moving again. Indeed, one of my clients is scheduled for an interview on June 29 in the Arlington Asylum Office and I have heard of other applicants receiving notices for interviews there as well. 

An Asylum Division manager explains how they will reopen their offices.

Second, it seems that the new interview process will be a bit different than what we are used to–

In accordance with social distancing guidelines, and due to the length of asylum interviews, asylum offices expect to conduct video-facilitated asylum interviews, where the applicants sit in one room and the interviewing officer sits in another room. Asylum offices will use available technology, including mobile devices provided by the agency, to ensure that the officer, applicant, interpreter and representative can fully and safely participate in the interview while maintaining social distancing.

This short description raises a few concerns related to (1) safety, (2) due process, and (3) security. In terms of safety, if the Asylum Officer is in his own room, that seems relatively safe, at least for the officer (though the officers still need to get to work and stay healthy in an environment with many coworkers). For the applicants, the situation is less clear. Presumably, they will have to wait in a waiting room. In normal times, we often spend considerable time waiting, as interviews are often delayed–sometimes for hours. I suppose applicants could be sent outside (to wander aimlessly?) and then contacted by phone when the officer is ready to see them. This would at least avoid overcrowding in the waiting area. Also, normally, asylum applicants have their fingerprints and photo taken when they check in to the interview. This often entails waiting in line while a staff member struggles with a fussy computer. Whether the offices have sufficient space to “social distance” while waiting to check in, I do not know.

During the interview, applicants are entitled to bring an interpreter and a lawyer. Will all those people share a room? No offense to my clients, but this is not very comforting. Will each of us have our own room? That seems to be the plan, at least in Virginia. Due to security concerns, Asylum Officers never left us unattended during interviews, even for a second, and so I am guessing that they will need empty rooms to put us into. But the rooms won’t be completely empty, since we will need video equipment (and hopefully chairs), and so I am not sure how that will work. Also, what stops us from leaving the room and wandering the halls of the Asylum Office (I myself might go in search of the mythical room where all my lost files are located). And where are they going to get all those empty rooms? My guess is that the “new normal” will involve far fewer interviews than the old normal, but I suppose the powers-that-be figure some interviews are better than none.

Another concern is due process. Asylum seekers are entitled to a fair procedure. I know from my experience in Immigration Court that video hearings are more difficult and less fair than in-person hearings, and I imagine the same will be true of asylum interviews. There is much that is easier in person. For example, at the beginning of the interview, the officer reviews the I-589 form and makes corrections. Sometimes, the officer wants to look at documents with the applicant. These things will be difficult to do if the officer and the applicant are in two different places. Also, if the lawyer, interpreter, and applicant are in different rooms, communication between them will be more challenging. Aside from this, it is simply more difficult to talk to a person by video (as we all now know from innumerable, interminable Zoom chats). This difficulty will be compounded if the applicant is wearing a mask, which may be necessary in the event she shares a room with her attorney or interpreter. All these protective measures will make it more difficult to interact with the Asylum Officer and will make an already stressful situation worse. In short, under the current circumstances, there will be significant barriers to receiving a fair adjudication.

An additional concern is security. Will the video equipment be secure, or might it be hacked by nefarious actors who want to harm asylum seekers? I do not know, but the federal government’s track record here is mixed, and for people seeking asylum, confidentiality is an important concern.

How does USCIS plan to keep asylum applicants safe? The agency has issued the following guidelines for entering USCIS facilities–

  • Visitors may not enter a USCIS facility if they:
    • Have any symptoms of COVID-19, including cough, fever or difficulty breathing;
    • Have been in close contact with anyone known or suspected to have COVID-19 in the last 14 days; or
    • Have been individually directed to self-quarantine or self-isolate by a health care provider or public health official within the last 14 days.
  • Visitors may not enter the facility more than 15 minutes prior to their appointment (30 minutes for naturalization ceremonies).
  • Hand sanitizer will be provided for visitors at entry points. 
  • Members of the public must wear facial coverings that cover both the mouth and nose when entering facilities. Visitors may be directed to briefly remove their face covering to confirm identity or take their photograph. There will be markings and physical barriers in the facility; visitors should pay close attention to these signs to ensure they follow social distancing guidelines.
  • Individuals are encouraged to bring their own black or blue ink pens.

My local office (Arlington) announced that telephonic appearances are not permitted for applicants because the Asylum Office must check identification. Also, the Asylum Office does not have any procedures for attorneys to appear telephonically (strange, since they do have telephones). All documents must be submit at least 72 hours before the interview, as there is apparently a new policy that requires 72 hours to pass before anyone can touch incoming mail. Finally, the Asylum Office will have a “very liberal” rescheduling policy, and so applicants can reschedule by email. Whether these same changes will apply at other offices, I do not know, but I imagine that all offices will follow similar procedures.

Like every other organization trying to reopen, USCIS is engaged in a difficult balancing act. How can they fulfill their mission and keep people safe? In my opinion, at the moment, they cannot do both. Given all the restrictions and contortions needed to make interviews happen, I expect they will only be able to interview a token few applicants. Under those circumstances, I do not see how it is worthwhile to endanger their staff and clientele (and anyone who comes into contact with them).

On the other hand, I know that many asylum seekers would be willing to take the risk. Not because they are reckless, but because they are so desperate to have their cases resolved and to reunite with family members. I can’t blame them for this.

There is no easy resolution to the dilemma. I hope USCIS will move cautiously, and I hope they will be able to keep people safe and provide them with fair interviews. We shall see.

Continue reading

194 Comments

Neuroscience, Memory, and Credibility in Immigration Court

by Jason Dzubow

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.

Introducing your authors: Aldis Petriceks, Erin Shortell, and Francis X. Shen.

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.

Continue reading

94 Comments

What You Can Do While Courts Are Closed: Get a Copy of Your File

by Jason Dzubow

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).
Now that he has a copy of his client’s file, David Cleveland is finally able to relax.

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.

Continue reading

80 Comments

Incompetence and Reckless at EOIR Endanger Lives

by Jason Dzubow

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.

There’s a new dress code at the Boston Immigration Court (and yes, this photo really is from the Boston Immigration Court).

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.

Continue reading

81 Comments

New Immigration Court Online Portal: Convenient, but Not So Confidential

by Jason Dzubow

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.

Easy access to court information is great, but maybe it could be a bit less public.

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.

Continue reading

75 Comments

EOIR Proposes Huge Fee Increase

by Jason Dzubow

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).

EOIR hopes to revive the tradition of paying your executioner.

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. 

Continue reading

113 Comments

New Data Shows that Most (But Not All) Asylum Offices Are Getting Tougher

by Jason Dzubow

Last fall, the Asylum Division cancelled its quarterly stakeholder engagement meeting and postponed the release of data about the various Asylum Offices. Now, finally, that information has been released. The news is generally bad (who would have guessed?), but the data contains some bright spots and surprises–as well as a few mysteries. Here, we’ll take a look at the most recent news from our nation’s Asylum Offices.

First, the data. The Asylum Division has released statistics for FY2019, which ended on September 30, 2019. The data shows that despite the Trump Administration’s hostility towards asylum seekers, many people continue to seek protection in the United States–through the fiscal year, a total of 82,807 new affirmative asylum applications were filed (and remember that some of these cases include dependents, so I imagine the total number of people filing for asylum in FY2019 is well over 100,000). Case completions are still not keeping up with new filings, and the overall asylum backlog continues to grow: From 323,389 at the beginning of the fiscal year, to 339,836 at the end. Throughout the year, the number one source country for new asylum cases was Venezuela. China was number two for most of the year, followed by Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Mexico.

In terms of grant rates, the news is fairly negative, but not uniformly so. As an arbitrary base-line, I will use a post I did in February 2016 about Asylum Office data from the second half of FY2015 (April to September 2015). I calculated the percentage of cases granted at each Asylum Office. In crunching the numbers, I discounted cases that were denied because the applicant failed to appear for an interview, but I included cases that were denied solely because the applicant failed to meet the one-year asylum filing deadline. I’ve made the same calculations for the period April to September 2019, and compared the grant rates for both time periods in the chart below. 

Whenever a lawyer does math: Beware!

As I mentioned, I did not include “no shows” in my data. For this reason, government statistics about the asylum grant rate will be lower than my numbers, since they include people who failed to appear for their interviews. If I had included “no-shows,” the FY2019 grant rate in Arlington would be only 19.5% (instead of 26.5%, as shown in the chart). The New York grant rate would drop to a paltry 7.1%, and the grant rate in San Francisco–the “best” asylum office–would fall to a still-respectable 54.0%. Arguably, it makes sense to include “no shows,” since some people may not appear due to no fault of their own. However, I chose to leave them out, since I suspect most have either found other relief or have left the country, and I don’t think it is useful to evaluate Asylum Offices based on denials where the applicant never appeared for an interview.

One problem with my comparison is that there are more asylum offices today than there were in 2015. The two new offices are Boston and New Orleans. The Boston office was previously a sub-office of Newark, and the New Orleans office was part of the Houston office (though in truth, I am not sure whether all of New Orleans’s jurisdiction was covered by Houston, or whether some was covered by Arlington). To account for this, the first numbers listed for Houston and Newark for FY2019 is the percentage of cases granted in that office. The numbers in parenthesis for Houston and Newark include cases that would have been within the jurisdictions of those offices in FY2015 (i.e., the New Orleans cases are included with Houston and the Boston cases with Newark). Thus, the parentheticals are useful only for comparison with the FY2015 numbers; if you are just interested in the percentage of cases granted in Houston and New Orleans in FY2019, look only at the first number.

The same chart, but here, I have removed one-year bar denials (reminder: Beware!!).

As you can see, there is an overall decline in the grant rate at most offices. In some cases, this decline is quite significant. One office–Houston–bucked the trend and actually granted a higher percentage of cases than in FY2015.

But perhaps things are not quite as bad as they appear. The numbers in the first chart include cases denied solely because the applicant failed to file asylum on time (remember that you are barred from asylum unless you file within one year of arriving in the U.S. or you meet an exception to that rule). In the second chart, I factored out cases that were denied solely because they were untimely (the Asylum Offices have been identifying late-filed cases and interviewing them; unless the applicant overcomes the one-year bar, the case is referred to Immigration Court without considering the merits of the asylum claim; since they are interviewing many such cases, this is pushing overall denial rates up). Comparing the two fiscal years in chart two, the decline in grant rates is much less severe. Indeed, three offices granted a higher percentage of timely-filed cases in FY2019 than in FY2015.

So what’s happening here? Why did grant rates generally decline? Why did some offices improve? What does all this mean for asylum seekers?

First of all, these numbers must be taken with a big grain of salt (and not just because I am an incompetent mathematician). A lot is going on at each Asylum Office. Different offices have different types of cases, including different source countries, greater or fewer numbers of unaccompanied alien children (“UAC”) cases, and different policies in terms of interviewing untimely applicants. As a result, some offices may be interviewing more “difficult” cases, while other offices are interviewing more “easy” cases. Offices that interview many Central American cases, or many UAC cases, for instance, will likely have lower grant rates than other offices. This is because Central American cases and UAC cases are more likely to be denied than many other types of asylum cases. Also, some offices are more aggressive than others in terms of identifying and interviewing untimely asylum cases. Offices that interview more late-filed cases will likely have a higher denial rate than offices that interview fewer late-filed cases.

Despite all this, it is fairly clear that the overall trend is negative. One obvious reason for this is a series of precedential cases and policy changes during the Trump Administration that have made it more difficult for certain asylum seekers, particularly victims of domestic violence and people who fear harm from Central American gangs. In addition–and I think this is probably less of a factor–the leadership at DHS and DOJ has repeatedly expressed hostility towards asylum seekers and encouraged the rank-and-file to identify and deny fraudulent applications.

Finally, as my colleague Victoria Slatton points out, it’s possible that the negative trend is worse than what the numbers above reflect. In FY2015, the Asylum Division gave priority to UAC cases. Since such cases are more likely to be denied, interviewing more of them may have pushed the overall grant rates down. In FY2019, UAC cases were not given priority, meaning that (probably) fewer UACs were interviewed. All things being equal, fewer UAC cases should mean a higher overall approval rate, but that is not what happened at most Asylum Offices. This may mean that more non-UAC cases are being denied today than in FY2015.

As you can see, there are a lot of moving parts, and a lot is going on behind these numbers. In one important sense, though, things have not changed much in the last four years. Strong cases still usually win; weak cases often fail. For asylum seekers (and their lawyers), we can only control so much of the process. Submitting a case that is well prepared, consistent, and supported by evidence will maximize your chances of success. And as the numbers above show, success is still possible even in these difficult times.  

Continue reading

232 Comments

New Immigration Court Statistics: The Good, The Bad, and The Unknown

by Jason Dzubow

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.

On a positive note, courts granted asylum to 19,831 people in FY2019. They are pictured above, celebrating.

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.

Continue reading

132 Comments