In April, immigration judges set two alarming records by closing over 11,000 asylum cases and denying 80% of them in a single month. An avalanche of asylum denials is just beginning.
It's hard to "like" this, but thank you for the candor and context. I have been wondering about the Biden effect on asylum grants, and your observations & research confirm my suspicions. Add the recent push from DHS to "pretermit" (i.e., deny by default without a hearing) asylum applications that facially do not meet a statutory standard, and we are threading a very fine needle indeed as we bring our clients' cases to the immigration court.
First, I think many of the people who entered on parole legitimately feared harm in their country. But most people do not understand that even if you fear death in your country it may not be sufficient to hurdle the high bar that is asylum. The murder you fear must be by the government or someone the government is unable or willing to control. And it must be on account of 5 protected grounds. So a legitimate fear of harm may not translate to asylum. Second, many asylum seekers are un or under-represented. Meaning, they have had no help, or their "help" came in the form of a 'paralegal,' a non-profit helping complete the form, or an unskilled lawyer or community member who just want to help. The applicant may be able to make a claim for asylum, but only if the person representing them is capable of understanding the legal intricacies and helping them make the claim. Third, adverse credibility is an awful cudgel. We hear it among the immigration bar: Judge A denied based on credibility because my client cried too much; Judge B denied on credibility because my client didn't show enough emotion; Judge C denied on credibility because the Statement wasn't detailed enough; Judge D denied on credibility because the statement was too detailed. I've had cases denied in one circuit that would without a doubt be approved in another circuit. One judge would deny what another judge would grant. You can't win. Until there are better national standards, asylum seekers will continue to gain protection or face death depending on the whims of the judge they face. It's not fair.
Austin, I'm a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation. Membership in the Fellows is limited to 1% of the attorneys in each jurisdiction, so I was very honored to be elected as a Fellow. You might explore their resources. For example, this page: https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/research/
Please let me know if I may be of further assistance. I'm semi-retired and have some free time.
It's hard to "like" this, but thank you for the candor and context. I have been wondering about the Biden effect on asylum grants, and your observations & research confirm my suspicions. Add the recent push from DHS to "pretermit" (i.e., deny by default without a hearing) asylum applications that facially do not meet a statutory standard, and we are threading a very fine needle indeed as we bring our clients' cases to the immigration court.
Thank you for your work, difficult and farcical as the systems are becoming.
First, I think many of the people who entered on parole legitimately feared harm in their country. But most people do not understand that even if you fear death in your country it may not be sufficient to hurdle the high bar that is asylum. The murder you fear must be by the government or someone the government is unable or willing to control. And it must be on account of 5 protected grounds. So a legitimate fear of harm may not translate to asylum. Second, many asylum seekers are un or under-represented. Meaning, they have had no help, or their "help" came in the form of a 'paralegal,' a non-profit helping complete the form, or an unskilled lawyer or community member who just want to help. The applicant may be able to make a claim for asylum, but only if the person representing them is capable of understanding the legal intricacies and helping them make the claim. Third, adverse credibility is an awful cudgel. We hear it among the immigration bar: Judge A denied based on credibility because my client cried too much; Judge B denied on credibility because my client didn't show enough emotion; Judge C denied on credibility because the Statement wasn't detailed enough; Judge D denied on credibility because the statement was too detailed. I've had cases denied in one circuit that would without a doubt be approved in another circuit. One judge would deny what another judge would grant. You can't win. Until there are better national standards, asylum seekers will continue to gain protection or face death depending on the whims of the judge they face. It's not fair.
Thank you for all this. Totally agree 100%.
Austin, I'm a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation. Membership in the Fellows is limited to 1% of the attorneys in each jurisdiction, so I was very honored to be elected as a Fellow. You might explore their resources. For example, this page: https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/research/
Please let me know if I may be of further assistance. I'm semi-retired and have some free time.
Thanks for the tip!