"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
The CLAWmobile — America’s First Due Process Powered Vehicle, Piloted by Attorney Yousof “Joe” Nesari, will be spreading the message to the Commonwealth and beyond!
CANCELLATION & LIFE AFTER WINNING: The CLAW Campaign Kicks Off
Delivered by Paul Wickham Schmidt
CLAW Headquarters, Reston, Virginia
February 27, 2022
Thank you for inviting me this afternoon. I’m honored to be here. Beyond that, I wish to congratulate and thank Neela Nesari and the rest of you for your courage, dedication, and humanity in standing up and speaking out for social justice in America.
Of course, I will start out by giving you my “standard comprehensive disclaimer.” What I’m about to tell you represents solely my views and not the views or opinions of any individual, institution, organization, or group with which I am associated, have been associated in the past, or might associate with in the future!
My time on the stage is winding down. But yours, my friends, is just beginning. You are the ones who control your destinies and must decide what kind of world you want to live in and what you want to leave behind for the next generations.
Relief for families granted cancellation of removal is a “just cause” that should be a “no-brainer” in a fair, well-functioning, human-values-based society. That neither such badly-needed specific remedial changes nor long overdue “big picture” reforms to fix our broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts, restore fairness and functionality to our shattered refugee and asylum programs, and make our legal immigration system robust, realistic, workable, and serving the national interest says something about our current national mood and our political leadership that should be quite concerning to you as the upcoming generation!
My friends, both our Immigration Courts and our democratic republic are in a grave existential crisis. There are powerful and well-organized forces with a very dark, exclusive, intolerant, sometimes belligerent vision of America’s future: one that reverses generations of human progress and knowledge and actively promotes intolerance, misinformation, dehumanization, and deconstruction of our democratic institutions and fundamental human values.
They actively promote an intentionally “whitewashed” version of American history: One that denies the ingenuity, creativity, and forced labor of generations of African Americans who literally built our country!It disregards the courage, tenacity, skill, and strength of Asian Americans who built our Transcontinental Railroad and literally brought our nation together. And, of course, it dismisses the legions of Hispanic Americans who have been “making America great” since before “America was America,” with their culture, hard work, determination, and commitment to the “real” American dream, not the “whitewashed” version. It basically devalues the essential contributions of almost all non-Western-European immigrants!
The future envisioned by these dark forces “x’es out” many, probably the majority, of you in this room. It says that their so-called individual rights to do as they please outweigh the common interests of society and humanity as a whole. Yet, few seem willing to challenge them and stand up for the rights and human dignity of“the others” which are being demeaned, devalued, and, in some cases, erased. Don’t let their darkness, willful ignorance, and often threatening demeanor be your future and that of generations to come.
Look around you here at the real history and the real America represented by this audience. The future is yours! Don’t let the forces of darkness and a “past that never was” deny your destiny!
Now is the time to take a stand for Due Process, fundamental fairness, human rights, human dignity, social justice, and human decency! Become the “next generation leaders” of the New Due Process Army and fight to make equal justice under law and the constitutional and human rights of everyone a reality rather than an unfulfilled promise! Due process forever!
Thanks again for inviting me and for listening.
********************
It was great to see in the audience some of the former students from my last “pre-pandemic in-person speech” to Professor Dree Collopy’s class at Washington College of Law at American University there as lawyers in the ranks of the NDPA!
Planned Asylum Overhaul Threatens Migrants’ Due Process
By Suzanne Monyak | June 12, 2020, 9:34 PM EDT
The Trump administration’s proposed overhaul of the U.S. asylum process, calling for more power for immigration judges and asylum officers, could hinder migrants’ access to counsel in an already fast-tracked immigration system.
The proposal, posted in a 161-page rule Wednesday night, aims to speed up procedures and raise the standards for migrants seeking protection in the U.S. at every step, while minimizing the amount of time a migrant has to consult with an attorney before facing key decisions in their case.
“It certainly sets a tone by the government that fairness, just basic day-in-court due process, is no longer valued,” said Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, director for the Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Penn State Law, University Park, Pennsylvania.
The proposed rule, which will publish in the Federal Register on Monday, suggests a slew of changes to the U.S. asylum system that immigrant advocates say would constitute the most sweeping changes to the system yet and cut off access for the majority of applicants.
Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell University Law School, said that it was as if administration officials took every precedential immigration appellate decision, executive order and policy that narrowed asylum eligibility under this administration and “wrapped them all in one huge Frankenstein rule that would effectively gut our asylum system.”
Among a litany of changes, the rule, if finalized, would revise the standards to qualify for asylum and other fear-based relief, including by narrowing what types of social groups individuals can claim membership in, as well as the very definitions of “persecution” and “torture.”
In doing so, the proposal effectively bars all forms of gender-based claims, for example, as well as claims from individuals fleeing domestic violence.
These tighter definitions and higher standards would make it difficult even for asylum-seekers who are represented to win their cases, attorneys said.
“I worry about how a rule like this can cause a chilling effect on private law firms, or even BigLaw, from even engaging with this work on a pro bono level because it’s just so challenging and this rule only puts up those barriers even more,” said Wadhia.
But for migrants without lawyers, the barrier to entry is particularly profound. For instance, the rule permits immigration judges to pretermit asylum applications, or deny an application that the judge determines doesn’t pass muster before the migrant can ever appear before the court.
This could pose real challenges for migrants who may not be familiar with U.S. asylum law or even fluent in English, but who are not guaranteed attorneys in immigration court.
“If you’re unrepresented, give me a break,” said Lenni B. Benson, a professor at New York Law School who founded the Safe Passage Project. “I don’t think my law students understand ‘nexus’ even if they’ve studied it,” she added, referring to the requirement that an individual’s persecution have a “nexus” to, or be motivated by, their participation in a certain social group.
“Giving all judges the authority to end an asylum application with no hearing at all is pretty jaw-dropping,” she said. “Those 90%-denial-rate judges are doing that with the respondent in front of them who’s already testifying about the persecution they’ve suffered or their fear.”
The proposal also allows asylum officers, who are employed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and are not required to have earned law degrees, to deem affirmative asylum applications frivolous, and to do so based on a broader definition of “frivolous.”
Currently, applicants must knowingly fabricate evidence in an asylum application for it be deemed frivolous. But the proposal would lower that standard, while expanding the definition of “frivolous” to include applications based on foreclosed law or that are considered to lack legal merit.
The penalty for a frivolous application is steep. If an immigration judge agrees that the application is frivolous under the expanded term, the applicant would be ineligible for all forms of immigration benefits in the U.S. for making a weak asylum claim, Collopy said.
“And under the new regulation, everything is a weak application,” she added.
Benson also said that allowing asylum officers to deny applications conflicts with a mandate that those asylum screenings not be adversarial.
When consulting for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security during the Obama administration, Benson had once supported giving asylum officers more authority to grant asylum requests on the spot when migrants present with strong cases from the get-go. But with this proposal, DHS “took that idea,” but then went “the negative way,” she said.
. . . .
“I can’t even think of a single client I have right now that could get around this,” Collopy said.
“It’s a fairly well-crafted rule,” said Yale-Loehr. “They clearly have been working on this for months.”
But it may not be strong enough to ultimately survive a court challenge, he said.
The proposal was met with an onslaught of opposition from immigrant advocates and lawmakers, drawing sharp rebukes from Amnesty International, the American Immigration Council and AILA, as well as from House Democrats.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., who leads the committee’s immigration panel, slammed the proposal in a Thursday statement as an attempt “to rewrite our immigration laws in direct contravention of duly enacted statutes and clear congressional intent.”
If the rule is finalized — the timing is tight during an election year — attorneys said it would likely face a constitutional challenge alleging that it doesn’t square with the due process clause by infringing on an individual’s right to access the U.S. asylum system.
And while the administration will consider public feedback before the policy takes effect, attorneys said it could still be vulnerable to a court challenge claiming it violates administrative law.
Benson said the proposed rule fails to explain why its interpretation of federal immigration law should trump federal court precedent.
“They can’t just do it, as much as they might like to, with the wave of a magic wand called notice-and-comment rulemaking,” she said.
Yale-Loehr predicted a court challenge to the policy, if finalized, could go the way of DHS’ public charge rule, which was struck down by multiple lower courts, and recently by a federal court of appeals, but was allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court to take effect while lawsuits continued.
If the policy is in place for any amount of time, it will likely lead to migrants with strong claims for protection being turned away, attorneys said. But Yale-Loehr didn’t believe it would lead to fewer asylum claims.
“If you’re fleeing persecution, you’re not stopping to read a 160-page rule,” he said. “You’re fleeing for your life, and no rule is going to change that fact.”
–Editing by Kelly Duncan.
***********************
Read Suzanne’s full analysis at the above link.
Although nominally designed to address the current Immigration Court backlog by encouraging or even mandating summary denial without due process of nearly 100% of asylum claims, as observed in the article, the exact opposite is likely to happen with respect to backlog reduction.
As Professor Steve Yale-Loehr points out, finalization of these regulations would undoubtedly provoke a flood of new litigation. True, the Supreme Court to date has failed to take seriously their precedents requiring due process for asylum seekers and other migrants. But, enough lower Federal Courts have been willing to initially step up to the plate that reversals and remands for fair hearings before Immigration Judges will occur on a regular basis in a number of jurisdictions.
This will require time-consuming “redos from scratch” before Immigration Judges that will take precedence on already backlogged dockets. It will also lead to a patchwork system of asylum rules pending the Supreme Court deciding what’s legally snd constitutionally required.
While based on the Court Majority’s lack of concern for due process, statutory integrity, and fundamental fairness for asylum seekers, particularly those of color, shown by the last few major tests of Trump Administration “constitutional statutory, and equal justice eradication” by Executive Order and regulation, one can never be certain what the future will hold.
With four Justices who have fairly consistently voted to uphold or act least not interfere with asylum seekers’ challenges to illegal policies and regulations, a slight change in either the composition of the Court or the philosophy of the majority Justices could produce different results.
As the link between systemic lack of equal justice under the Constitution for African Americans and the attacks on justice for asylum seekers, immigrants, and other people of color becomes clearer, some of the Justices who have enabled the Administration’s xenophobic anti-immigrant, anti-asylum programs might want to rethink their positions. That’s particularly true in light of the lack of a sound factual basis for such programs.
As good advocates continue to document the deadly results and inhumanity, as well as the administrative failures, of the Trump-Miller White nationalist program, even those justices who have to date been blind to what they were enabling might have to take notice and reflect further on both the legal moral obligations we owe to our fellow human beings.
In perhaps the most famous Supreme Court asylum opinion, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 436-37 (1987), Justice Stevens said:
If one thing is clear from the legislative history of the new definition of “refugee,” and indeed the entire 1980 Act, it is that one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United. States acceded in 1968.
These proposed regulations are the exact opposite: without legislation, essentially repealing the Refugee Act of 1980 and ending U.S. compliance with the international refugee and asylum protection instruments to which we are party. Frankly, today’s Court majority appears, without any reasonable explanation, to have drifted away from Cardoza’s humanity and generous flexibility in favor of endorsing and enabling various immigration restrictionist schemes intended to weaponize asylum laws and processes against asylum seekers. But, are they really going to allow the Administration to overrule (and essentially mock) Cardoza by regulation? Perhaps, but such fecklessness will have much larger consequences for the Court and our nation.
Are baby jails, kids in cages, rape, beating, torture, child abuse, clearly rigged biased adjudications, predetermined results, death sentences without due process, bodies floating in the RioGrande, and in some cases assisting femicide, ethnic cleansing, and religious and political repression really the legacy that the majority of today’s Justices wish to leave behind? Is that how they want to be remembered by future generations?
Scholars and well-respected legal advocates like Professor Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr, Professor Lenni Benson, and Dree Collopy have great expertise in immigration and asylum laws and an interest in reducing backlogs and creating functional Immigration Courts consistent with due process and Constitutional rights. Like Professor Benson, they have contributed practical ideas for increasing due process while reducing court backlogs. Instead of turning their good ideas, like “fast track grants and more qualified representation of asylum seekers, on their heads, why not enlist their help in fixing the current broken system?
We need a government that will engage in dialogue with experts to solve problems rather than unilaterally promoting more illegal, unwise, and inhumane attacks on, and gimmicks to avoid, the legal, due process, and human rights of asylum seekers.
As Professor Yale-Loehr presciently says at the end of Suzanne’s article:
“If you’re fleeing persecution, you’re not stopping to read a 160-page rule,” he said. “You’re fleeing for your life, and no rule is going to change that fact.”
Isn’t it time for our Supreme Court Justices, legislators, andpolicy makers to to recognize the truth of that statement and require our asylum system and our Immigration Courts to operate in the real world of refugees?
President Trump’s recent action to limit asylum claims at the U.S.-Mexico border is just his latest attempt to scare Americans about asylum seekers, undercutting long-standing principles of decency and humanity.
And like most of what Trump says about immigrants, the rationale the administration is using to keep out asylum seekers is based on myths and deliberate obfuscations.
Trump may not like it, but seeking asylum from persecution is a core human right. This right was recognized by the world and enshrined in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It has also been recognized by the United States and enshrined in our own domestic laws. Specifically, anyone “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival . . .), irrespective of [their] status, may apply for asylum.” The Trump administration’s order will curtail this fundamental right and inevitably prompt strong legal challenges and protracted, resource-intensive litigation in our courts.
Immigration lawyers like us know the truth about the people whom Trump calls an “invasion.” These asylum-seeking families, most fleeing horrific violence in Central America, where their own governments cannot protect them, are doing what is most human — trying to survive and protect their children.
We are asylum attorneys, but like many of our asylum-seeking clients, we are also mothers — of children ages 1 and 4, and one of us is nine months pregnant. Like most parents, we would do anything to keep our children safe. This is, indeed, the primary reason mothers decide to flee, sometimes pregnant, sometimes with small children, and take what they know and understand is the dangerous journey north — because they determine that is their best option for safety. This very human act of seeking protection for one’s children should be met with humanity, not hate-driven policies.
And the idea of an invasion isn’t the only false claim the administration is making to justify its new policy.
The administration seems to assume that those seeking asylum between ports of entry are less worthy, genuine or credible than those who seek entry at the border. In reality, there are totally valid reasons people enter between ports of entry — first and foremost, the U.S. government has a track record of unlawfully turning away asylum seekers from ports of entry.
The administration assumes that asylum seekers from Central America will be safe in Mexico. Trump said in his speech earlier this month that Mexico had offered asylum to members of a large refugee caravan traveling from Central America, and that if they did not accept it, they must not be genuine asylum seekers.
Trump gets two facts wrong here. First, the United States does not have a “safe third country agreement” with Mexico (as we do have in place with Canada), which would make it a requirement for any asylum seeker who set foot on Mexican soil to seek asylum in Mexico first or be barred from pursuing asylum in the United States.
And second, the reason we don’t have such an agreement with Mexico is because Mexico is not capable of providing adequate protection for many migrants. For example, last year, the University of the District of Columbia law school’s immigration clinic handled the case of a Honduran woman who fled severe harm and targeting by a powerful transnational gang and was then attacked by Los Zetas in Mexico as she traveled with her two young children to the United States. She dutifully sought asylum in Mexico, only to be told by Mexican officials that they could not protect her from the Zetas or the gang who had targeted her in Honduras. They advised her to continue to the United States to seek meaningful protection. She was granted asylum.
The Trump administration’s rule and proclamation are grounded in rhetoric about the need to cut down on government resources devoted to asylum seekers at the southern border. However, the changes are unlikely to save government resources; while they will bar individuals who enter between ports of entry from gaining asylum, making them eligible only for withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), withholding and CAT still require a court hearing, which will continue to be delayed given the backlog of now more than 1 million cases in our immigration courts.
Moreover, granting withholding or CAT relief, as opposed to asylum, will add to the creation of a permanent underclass of refugees. These refugees will be barred from a path to permanent residence, family reunification and full inclusion as members of our society. Instead, they will live in limbo.
For example, take one of the UDC law school clinic’s clients from last year. Her persecutor kidnapped her at age 17 and then kept her in a hut for six months, raping her repeatedly. After six months, he said she was his wife and warned that if she left him, he would kill her younger siblings. For the next 20 years, she endured horrific abuse at his hands, eventually escaping and making it to the United States on her third attempt. She was barred from asylum because of her unsuccessful prior attempts to enter but eventually granted withholding of removal. While she works hard legally as a nanny in the D.C. metro area, she has no right to ever sponsor her children for immigration; nor can she leave the United States without losing her status. She will live in permanent limbo and never see her children again. This rule will create the same situation for many more people like her.
This move is just the latest in a string of efforts by the Trump administration to dehumanize asylum seekers, to create an “us vs. them” mentality. The fearmongering has already contributed to the massacre of 11 Jewish Americans at a synagogue in Pittsburgh because the suspect allegedly believed the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and all Jews were assisting the “invasion” of America.
But it is not “us vs. them.” We are all human. We all breathe the same air. We all want to be free. And above all else, we want our children to be safe. We implore the Trump administration and our fellow Americans to recognize our common humanity and start treating asylum seekers like fellow human beings, rather than demons to blame, criminals to punish and monsters to detain and fear. It is our common humanity that should guide our policy. Only then can the United States begin to return to its position of moral leadership.
************************************************
The problem is that the Trump Administration doesn’t recognize a “common humanity.” Only its own, self-interested, White Nationalist, exclusive agenda. So, there’s no “core of decency” to which one might appeal.
What if we had a different “leader?” One who paid attention to facts, respected experts, sought different views, possessed values and human compassion, and, most of all, sought to solve problems rather than using lies, slander, and slurs to dehumanize individuals and promote an essentially racist agenda!
Priscilla writes in an article that also contains quotes from highly respected DC area immigration practitioner Dree Collopy (emphasis added in below excerpt):
“Responding to the 2014 migrant wave, the Obama administration temporarily redirected immigration judges to the southern border to preside over removal proceedings and bond hearings, and review whether any individuals’ claims of fear of persecution were credible. Immigration cases being heard in other parts of the United States had to be put on hold, said Jeremy McKinney, an attorney and board member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “The surge was the first time we saw a deployment of immigration judges to the border, resulting in non-detained dockets in the United States getting much worse,” McKinney said, referring to cases that do not require detention. “That situation already put a strain on the interior immigration courts.”
The Justice Department, which hires judges for immigration courts, was also tied up by the budget sequester from 2011 to 2014, so there weren’t enough judges to try cases, he added. Over time, the backlog grew from around 327,000 cases at the end of the 2012 fiscal year to half a million in 2016.
Judge Paul Schmidt, who was appointed in 2003 by Attorney General John Ashcroft, had around 10,000 immigration cases pending when he left his job last year. “When I retired, I was sending cases to 2022,” he told me. Schmidt, who primarily served in the Arlington Immigration Court in northern Virginia, was assigned to those not considered a priority—say, people who had traffic violations. The current national backlog, Schmidt said, largely consists of cases like the ones he handled.
The Trump administration has taken steps that could quicken the courts’ work. For one, ICE officers can now deport someone immediately, without a hearing, if they fit certain criteria and have lived in the United States for up to two years. Under the last administration, that timeline was up to two weeks, and the individual needed to be within 100 miles of the border.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions also announced, in a speech on the Arizona-Mexico border, that the Department of Justice will add 125 immigration judges to the bench over the next two years: 50 this year and 75 in 2018. He urged federal prosecutors to prioritize the enforcement of immigration laws. “This is a new era. This is the Trump era,” Sessions said. “The lawlessness, the abdication of the duty to enforce our immigration laws, and the catch-and-release practices of old are over.”
“You have to give Sessions credit for this,” Schmidt said. “He took note of the 18-to-24-month cycle for filling judges and said he was going to streamline that.” The math still doesn’t exactly work out, however. “A fully trained judge, which new judges won’t be, can do about 750 cases a year. So 125 new judges could do fewer than 100,000 cases a year once they’re up and trained,” he said. Factor in the fact that it takes up to two years to become “fully productive,” he said, and altogether, it could take five to six years for the 125 new judges to cut down the backlog.
All the while, new cases will continue to come in as the administration enforces its new, broader policies on deportation. Newly detained individuals will be prioritized over other cases, which will be pushed further down the road. “I think it has a particular impact on asylum-seekers, because the sense of being in limbo really seems to prolong their trauma and their sense of statelessness that they have,” said Dree Collopy, an immigration lawyer in Washington, D.C. And hearing delays can affect asylum-seekers’ credibility, as well as evidence to support their cases: “Over time, especially when trauma is involved, memories begin to fade.” If a person can’t testify until years after entering the United States, “that can obviously cause problems.”
When Collopy first started practicing immigration law in 2007, cases generally would take about a year or two to complete. That’s no longer the case: “Now, it’s taking four or five years on average,” she told me. With the Trump administration rounding up undocumented immigrants quicker than courts can process cases, that delay isn’t likely to shorten.”
*****************************************
Read Priscilla’s full article at the above link.
A “smart” strategy would address the 542,000 pending cases before piling on new priorities. Under a more rational policy, those in the current backlog with equities in the U.S., “clean records,” or only minor criminal histories, could be offered “prosecutorial discretion” (“PD”) and taken off the Immigration Court’s docket to make room for higher priority cases.
However, instead of encouraging more use of PD, which was starting to make some difference by the end of the Obama Administration, the Trump Administration has basically made “everything” a potential “priority.” Moreover, as a “double whammy” the Administration has basically “disempowered” those at DHS who know the Immigration Court system the best, the local ICE Assistant Chief Counsel, from freely exercising PD to take non-criminal cases off the docket.
Ironically, at the same time, DHS appears to be giving line enforcement agents the “green light” to arrest just about anyone who might be removable for any reason. However, the line agents unlikely to understand the limitations of the current Immigration Court system and what is already “on the docket.”
The Immigration Court system is basically the opposite of most other law enforcement systems where prosecutors, rather than policemen or agents, determine what cases will be brought before the court. And, in most functioning court systems, the individual sitting judges control their own dockets, rather than having priorities set by politically-driven non-judicial bureaucrats in other places. It certainly appears to be a prescription for disaster. Stay tuned!
PWS
04-21-17
NOTE: In an earlier version of this article I “blew” Priscilla’s name by calling her “Patricia.” My apologies. I’ve now corrected it.
“Effective February 27, 2017, new changes to the asylum screening process could lead to an increased number of deportations of asylum-seekers who fear persecution upon return to their home country.
On February 13, 2017, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) revised its Asylum Division Officer Training Course (ADOTC) lesson plans on how to assess an asylum seeker’s credible and reasonable fear of persecution or torture. The lesson plans were revised to be consistent with the January 25, 2017 Executive Order on border security and immigration enforcement and provide guidelines to the asylum officers when conducting credible fear interviews (for those at the border or port of entry who were never previously deported) and reasonable fear interviews (for those who were previously order deported but who later seek asylum).
The changes to the lesson plans are significant and may cause the denial rate to skyrocket, in which case thousands of asylum seekers would be wrongfully denied a meaningful day in court . Not only does the new guidance provide asylum officers with greater discretion to deny an applicant for reasons which may be out of the applicant’s control, but the applicant will essentially be forced to undergo a full asylum hearing with none of the safeguards in place to ensure a meaningful opportunity to present a claim for relief.”
**************************************
Read Katie’s complete analysis at the link. You should also look at Dree Collopy’s short video on the changes which I previously posted.
If this carries over into Immigration Court where unsuccessful applicants can seek “expedited review,” it would mean that “credible fear reviews” could become more time consuming.
I was usually able to complete them in a few minutes using the Asylum Officer’s notes and asking a few questions. I found that the overwhelming number of those denied had “credible fear,” and probably at least half of those cases eventually resulted in relief. However, over the last year of my career I was primarily on the non-detained docket, so I only did “credible fears” when I was on detail to a detention center or the system was backed up.
As an Immigration Judge, I did not use the USCIS lesson plans. But, I did rely on the Asylum Officer’s notes for a basic understanding of the claim. I then usually asked a few questions to verify that the notes accurately reflected the claim and that nothing relevant had been omitted.
Bottom Line: Under pressure from the Trump Administration, USCIS is tilting the system against (largely unrepresented) asylum applicants from the Northern Triangle. The only questions are 1) whether the Immigration Courts will follow suit, and 2) if so, whether the Article III Courts will blow or swallow (as they have done so far in the credible/reasonable fear context) the whistle on due process for the most vulnerable.
A good introduction to reality for anyone who believes that conscientious career civil servants will be able to persevere in the face of the Trump Administration’s all-out assault on due process and fundamental fairness.
