Featured Issue: Asylum Under Trump 2.0
On the first day of his second term, President Trump suspended all entries at the U.S. Southern Border for asylum seekers. Since then, the Administration has implemented sweeping restrictions that shut America’s doors to people fleeing persecution. These policies violate federal law, erode constitutionally protected due process, exacerbate the asylum backlog, and give those seeking safety an increasingly narrow path to protection.
Left unchecked by Congress, these policies will have dire consequences for both asylum seekers and the integrity of our legal system. Asylum seekers—especially those without access to counsel—are at grave risk of being returned to harm.
It doesn’t have to be this way. The Administration can maintain order at U.S. borders and effectively manage migration without sacrificing fairness and adherence to the law. With more trained asylum officers, a streamlined legal process, legal representation for asylum seekers, and more effective coordination between relevant agencies, the U.S. can establish a safe, orderly, and humane asylum system.
Browse the Featured Issue: Asylum Under Trump 2.0 collection
One Road to Immigration Law
True confession: I did not take immigration law in law school and I took Latin as my foreign language class. AILA members, reading that, I'm sure you just groaned. But the fact was, I did not become an attorney to practice immigration law. About 20 years ago though, my life took a happy turn and [&
Affirmative Asylum Scheduling Bulletin (7/13/17)
USCIS’s Affirmative Asylum Scheduling Bulletin as of 7/13/17. This Bulletin explains how the Asylum Division has prioritized the adjudication of affirmative applications for asylum.
AILA Quicktake #209: Council Sues U.S. Government for Turning Away Asylum Seekers
American Immigration Council staff attorney Caroline Walters shares details of the lawsuit filed July 12, 2017, that charges that the government violated individuals' rights to seek asylum and lays out what comes next.
Challenging CBP’s Unlawful Practice of Turning Away Asylum Seekers
The American Immigration Council, along with the Center for Constitutional Rights and Latham and Watkins, LLP, filed a class action lawsuit challenging CBP’s unlawful practice of turning away asylum seekers who present themselves at ports of entry. (Al Oltro Lado, Inc. v. Kelly, 7/12/17)
CA7 Finds Adverse Credibility Finding Against Moldovian Asylum Applicant Was Arbitrary and Capricious
The court granted the petition for review and remanded, holding that discrepancies in petitioner’s testimony on which the IJ relied were so trivial or illusory as to give the court no confidence in her analysis or in the BIA’s decision resting on that analysis. (Cojocari v. Sessions, 7/11/17)
CA8 Upholds Denial of Ethiopian Petitioner’s Asylum Claim Based on Political Opinion
The court held that the harms petitioner pointed to as evidence of past persecution, including his three-month detention in a military camp and threats he received after a trip to the United States, did not compel the finding that he experienced past persecution. (Baltti v. Sessions, 7/10/17)
Executive Disorder: Ethical Challenges for Immigration Lawyers under the Trump Administration
While it was impossible to predict just how rough things would get, this article discusses ethical rules to consider when your client comes under attack and you must practice more defensively. Read this article from AILA’s PPC to reaffirm the rules and practices you should be implementing.
BIA Holds Adjustment from Refugee to LPR Status Not an “Admission”
Unpublished BIA decision holds that adjustment of status under INA §209 is not an “admission” as an LPR for purposes of the aggravated felony bar in INA §212(h). Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of B-V-N-, 7/5/17)
CA9 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Chinese Petitioner Based on Adverse Credibility Determination
The court held that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on anomalies in the petitioner’s supporting documentation, her vague testimony, and her failure to submit sufficient reliable corroborating evidence. (Wang v. Sessions, 7/3/17)
The Muslim Travel Ban: What Is the Impact of the Supreme Court’s June 26, 2017, Decision
The American Immigration Council provides a practice advisory on the Supreme Court’s 6/26/17 decision and details how DOS and DHS are implementing those portions of Executive Order 13780 that are no longer enjoined.
DOS Fact Sheet: Information Regarding the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program
DOS provided a fact sheet on the U.S. refugee admissions program as impacted by the Supreme Court decision on EO 13780, stating that a formal assurance from a resettlement agency is not a qualifying relationship and that refugees scheduled for travel through 7/6/17 will be permitted to travel.
Immigration Law Advisor, May/June 2017 (Vol. 11, No. 4)
The May/June 2017 issue of Immigration Law Advisor includes an article with an overview of the breadth and depth of the stop-time rule from IIRIRA and cancellation of removal, as well as summaries of recent circuit court decisions and BIA precedent decisions.
Will Government Employees Show Some Moxie in the Immigration Struggle?
In case you haven't noticed, advocates for immigrants and favorable immigration policies in this country are at war with the current administration in Washington. And, for those who think the attitude in Washington will change in the next four to eight years, think again. Unfortunately, negative att
DHS Announces Implementation of Travel Restriction Provisions of EO 13780
DHS issued a statement on the implementation of certain travel restriction provisions in EO 13780, including a list of individuals who the travel restrictions will not apply to.
DOS Background Briefing on the Implementation of EO 13780
DOS background briefing with senior administration officials on the implementation of EO 13780. Of note, DOS notes that a resettlement agency providing a formal assurance for refugees seeking admission is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish a bona fide relationship under the ruling.
CA8 Upholds Denial of Asylum to President of Community Development Organization That Addressed Gang Problems in El Salvador
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that that there was an insufficient nexus between the threats the petitioner received from the MS-13 gang and her membership in a community development organization in El Salvador. (Gomez-Garcia v. Sessions, 6/28/17)
CA5 Says Alleged Past Persecution of Mother Cannot Be Imputed to 10-Year-Old Daughter
The court upheld the BIA’s denial of asylum, holding that the alleged past persecution of petitioner’s mother could not be imputed to petitioner, a 10-year-old citizen of El Salvador, and that petitioner did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. (Herrera Morales v. Sessions, 6/27/17)
CA8 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Nigerian Who Asserted Supernatural Forces Inflicted Harm on Him
The court denied the petition for review, holding that the supernatural harms petitioner described were not persecution because they were not inflicted by the government or private parties that the Nigerian government was unable to control. (Edionseri v. Sessions, 6/26/17)
CA9 Reopens Proceedings to Reconsider CAT Claim Due to Changed Country Conditions in Ethiopia
The court granted the petition for review and remanded, holding that the BIA abused its discretion by disregarding or discrediting undisputed new evidence submitted by the petitioner regarding increased violence toward homosexuals in Ethiopia. (Agonafer v. Sessions, 6/23/17)
CA1 Upholds Denial of Withholding of Removal to Petitioner Who Feared Gangs in Guatemala
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s findings that the petitioner did not establish that she would likely be harmed by criminal gangs in Guatemala based upon an enumerated ground. (Marroquín-Rivera v. Sessions, 6/23/17)
Guardians of our Constitution
Adapted from the installation speech of Annaluisa Padilla, 2017-18 President of AILA
CA2 Finds BIA Erred in Barring Cancellation and Asylum Applications of Petitioner Convicted Under NY Penal Law §220.31
The court granted in part the petition for review and applied the categorical approach to determine that the petitioner’s conviction under N.Y. Penal Law §220.31 did not constitute a drug‐trafficking aggravated felony. (Harbin v. Sessions, 6/21/17)
CRS Report: Reception and Placement of Refugees in the United States
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) provides a report on the reception and placement of refugees. As of 5/31/17, refugee arrivals have been placed in the District of Columbia and every state except Wyoming. In FY2016, the only states with no refugee placements were Delaware and Hawaii.
Mandamus Actions in the Asylum Context: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case
AILA’s Asylum & Refugee Committee and the American Immigration Council’s joint practice advisory detailing the required components of successful mandamus action and APA challenges in the asylum context, as well as the obstacles and pitfalls to avoid.
BIA Limits Application of Firm Resettlement Bar
Unpublished BIA decision holds that the firm resettlement bar does not apply to asylum applicants who fear persecution in the country of alleged resettlement. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of L-K-U-, 6/16/17)