Tag: Biden Asylum Regulations

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2023/07/18/border-asylum-us-mexico-biden-legal/

Maria writes:

. . . .

Federal law says anyone fleeing persecution may request asylum once they reach U.S. soil, no matter how they got there. Successive administrations have attempted to restrict that simple rule, however, desperate to reduce record numbers of crossings that have overwhelmed the immigration system, leaving many to live for years in the United States without a decision in their cases.

. . . .

One border, two realities

The perceived success of Biden’s approach depends on which side of the border the migrants are on.

Brownsville, an American city of 200,000 on the other side of the Rio Grande from Matamoros, Mexico, is officially under a state of emergency. But that emergency has dissipated in recent months.

The streets are quiet, thanks to a 70 percent drop in illegal border crossers since the new asylum rule and other Biden policy changes took effect. City workers greet the relatively small number of newcomers released from holding facilities and escort them to a curtained-off parking garage and to the first bus out of town.

In Matamoros, however, migrants trying to navigate the new rules are squeezing into shelters, sharing hotel rooms, curling up in a large camp on the dry riverbank or under pop-up tents at a grimy former gas station.

On a pedestrian bridge one hot morning in late June, Mexican authorities shooed away those who did not have an appointment through the app — including some Mexicans, even though the rule change is not supposed to apply to them.

“Let’s go, please,” one officer said to migrants who gathered at the Matamoros edge of the bridge. “Now.”

Advocates for immigrants say it is unlawful for officials to block migrants from crossing borders in search of protection — and unfair to presume they can easily navigate U.S. asylum law and appointments via smartphone apps. The process of requesting asylum is supposed to be simple, they said, because lives are at stake.

But advocates are powerless to navigate around the new rules until the court case is resolved.

In the sweltering heat one recent day, Christina Asencio, a lawyer with Human Rights First, tried to explain to migrants in the Matamoros camps how the system is supposed to work.

. . . .

**************************

Read Maria’s full article, one of the more balanced treatments I have encountered, at the link.

A few thoughts:

• Even this fine article misses the biggest point: Most asylum seekers want to “do things the right way.” But there has been no “right way” for years because of  the unlawful and bogus use of Title 42 by both the Trump and Biden Administrations. It’s still being unlawfully restricted by the arbitrary Biden Administration regulations. Yet, remarkably, asylum seekers are willing to risk their lives waiting in Mexico for an opportunity to apply in an orderly, legal manner under a broken and biased system unfairly “rigged” against them! THAT’S the “real big takeaway” about the reduction in unauthorized border crossings. It’s one that that nobody except experts and advocates are willing to fully acknowledge! Indeed, during the Title 42 charade, an asylum seeker’s only chance of getting into the system was to cross without authorization. Otherwise, they would have been summarily returned without any chance to present their claims.
• Some asylum seekers will qualify for protection, some won’t. That’s what the legal, asylum system is supposed to determine — in a fair, expert, and timely manner. That our asylum system has become dysfunctional and ludicrously backlogged lies squarely with poor performance by Congress, the Executive, and the Courts, in many cases “egged on” by right-wing nativists’ myths and distortions. Blaming the victims — asylum seekers — for massive USG failures over decades is totally disingenuous!
• Statistically, it’s true that most asylum applicants from the Southern Border do not achieve asylum under our current dysfunctional system. But, the question we should be asking is why aren’t more qualifying, given the horrible conditions in “sending countries” and the generous legal standards — including a presumption of future persecution based on past persecution — that are supposed to apply, but often don’t in practice. 
• For years, the Executive, through its captive EOIR “courts,” has been unfairly manipulating and intentionally misapplying the law, as well as misreading and ignoring evidence, to achieve unrealistically high asylum denial rates for applicants of color, particularly those arriving at our borders from Latin American and Haiti. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/justice-betrayed-the-intentional-mistreatment-of-central-american-asylum-applicants-by-the-executive-office-for-immigration-review/; https://immigrationcourtside.com/appellate-litigation-in-todays-broken-and-biased-immigration-court-system-four-steps-to-a-winning-counterattack-by-the-relentless-new-due-process-army/. This continues to happen, as documented by the unusually large number of rebukes by Article III Courts (even some of the most conservative) of the flawed decision-making coming out of Garland’s broken EOIR. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/07/14/🌊-tsunami-of-bad-☠️-bia-decisions-hits-garlands-doj-wrong-on-nexus-4th-2-1-wrong-on-nta-4th-2-1-wrong-on-agfel-8th-wrong-on-past-political-per/.
• One of the most egregious EOIR-led anti-asylum “scams” is abuse and misuse of the “nexus” requirement for asylum to send legitimate refugees back into harm’s way. See, e.g., immediately preceding reference. “Persecution” must relate to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. But, the asylum statute does NOT require that that be the sole or even the primary motivation for the persecution. It just has to be “at least one central reason.” And, usually, persecution is carried out by the persecutor for a variety of reasons. It’s called “mixed motive analysis” and EOIR Judges, particularly at the precedent-setting BIA, routinely ignore or mis-apply it to deny grantable claims. 
• Harm resulting from things like “work, poverty, natural disaster, and bad governments” does not automatically qualify an individual for asylum. But, contrary to what many suggest, neither do these circumstances preclude asylum. For example, while a “natural disaster” might not make an individual a “refugee” under law, if that individual were forced to live in a known danger zone or denied life-saving assistance at least in part because of religious, ethnic, or political identity, that WOULD qualify. Was the infamous “Kristallnacht” in Nazi Germany systemic persecution of Jews for ethic and religious reasons? Or was it “mere vandalism, random violence, and hooliganism?” I would say clearly the former. But, I can imagine today’s BIA attributing it to the latter, to deny protection to a large group of individuals. I adjudicated thousands of asylum cases as both a trial and an appellate judge during 21 years at EOIR. I found that harm where a “protected ground” was “at least one central reason” was the rule, not the exception as EOIR tries so hard to make it.
• Other often “trumped up” methods EOIR uses for denying valid asylum claims include bogus “adverse credibility” findings; unreasonable “corroboration” requirements; fabricated “reasonable internal relocation” opportunities; nonsensical, ahistorical “changed circumstances” conclusions; ignoring or misconstruing expert testimony; “selective reading” or mis-reading of country background reports; coercive detention in substandard conditions; and restricting or limiting access to counsel. If you think this sounds like a national disgrace on “Garland’s watch,” you’re absolutely right!
• Undoubtedly, under a properly functioning system, with true expert adjudicators and judges — those whose career experiences demonstrated sound scholarship and understanding of the life-threatening circumstances of asylum seekers and the inherent limitations of both the Asylum office and EOIR — many more asylum cases from those applying at the Southern Border and elsewhere would be granted. So, Government policies based largely on “deterrence” or on the self-fulfilling prophecy that “few will qualify” should be viewed as fatally flawed. Without a better EOIR and an asylum adjudication system run by well-qualified experts, we can’t possibly formulate rational and humane border policies or indeed workable immigration policies at all. Tragically, we’re a long way from that right now!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-19-23