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
CA7 Rejects Asylum Claim of Assyrian Christian from Iraq
CA7 held that the Petitioner did not establish past persecution based on one of the five grounds. It also found that her fear of the former regime did not support asylum and her other arguments could not be considered because they had not been made below.(Margos v. Gonzales, 4/5/06)
CA3 Rejects IJ’s Numerous Adverse Findings as Speculative in Asylum Claim from Cote d’Ivoire
The court held that substantial evidence did not support the IJ’s finding that the harm to Petitioner was not sufficiently severe to constitute persecution, and the IJ failed to apply the BIA’s three-part inquiry on corroboration. (Toure v. Gonzales, 4/5/06)
CA9 Requires Case-Specific Decision on Whether Sexual Abuse of a Minor AgFel Constitutes a Particularly Serious Crime
The court held that INA §242(a)(2)(B) did not preclude review of whether the BIA applied the proper legal standards in evaluating whether a crime was particularly serious so as to render Petitioner ineligible for withholding. (Afridi v. Gonzales, 4/4/06)
CA8 Finds IJ Erred in Failing to Determine Whether Ethiopian Asylum-Seeker Suffered Past Persecution
CA8 noted that IJ’s denial of asylum was based solely on his holding that Petitioner did not have a subjectively genuine fear of future persecution, and that the IJ did not state specific cogent reasons for disbelieving Petitioner’s past persecution testimony. (Bushira v. Gonzales, 4/4/06)
CA6 Finds IJ Violated Petitioner’s Due Process Rights by Relying on Hearsay Department of State Memoranda
The court found that the IJ’s reliance on two DOS memoranda to conclude that Petitioner’s documents were fraudulent violated Petitioner’s due process rights and vacated the IJ’s finding of a frivolous asylum claim. (Alexandrov v. Gonzales, 4/4/06)
CA7 Holds BIA Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Denying Motion to Reopen South African Asylum Case
CA7 upheld the BIA’s rulings that Petitioners failed to demonstrate due diligence in filing their motions to reopen and failed to show that conditions in South Africa had changed for persons of Indian ancestry between the time of the decision and the motion. (Patel v. Gonzales, 3/30/06)
CA10 Finds No Jurisdiction to Review One-Year Asylum Deadline And Errors in Transcript or Translation Did Not Violate Due Process
The court cited INA § 208(a)(3), not the REAL ID Act, to support the finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the one-year deadline argument. (Panjaitan v. Gonzales, 3/28/06)
CA6 Remands Mauritanian Asylum Case for BIA to Consider Country Reports and Address Petitioner’s Explanations for Discrepancies
The court found that a remand of the case was appropriate in light of the recent coup in Mauritania, country reports, and the mistreatment of the Fulani minority by government forces. (N’Diom v. Gonzales, 3/24/06)
CA7 Finds Military Conscription is Not Persecution; Upholds IJ Refusal to Allow Expert Telephonic Testimony
The court held that neither military conscription of a Serbian Muslim nor incidents involving his Christian wife and children, constituted persecution. The court also found that the IJ’s refusal to allow an expert to testify telephonically was not arbitrary. (Djedovic v. Gonzales, 3/23/06)
BIA Refuses Reopening on Forced Sterilization Claim
The BIA held that an alien seeking to reopen removal proceedings based on a claim that the birth of a second child in the U.S. will result in the alien’s forced sterilization in China cannot establish prima facie eligibility for relief. Matter of C-C-, 23 I&N Dec. 899 (BIA 2006)
AILA Liaison Meeting Agenda and Responses from DOS (3/23/06)
The AILA DOS Liaison meeting discussed the redress process, student visa issues, medical exams, Social Security, retrogression, visa numbers, B visas, VWP, Blanket Ls, visa refusals, Haiti, Chennai, NVC, CSPA, asylees, address changes or corrections, DNA testing, security checks, and biometrics.
EOIR Responses to AILA's Liaison Questions (3/22/06)
Liaison issues addressed with EOIR included unanswered motions, the 1-800 telephone system, absentia orders, unfiled NTAs, e-payment of fees, circuit court remands, biometrics, briefing schedules, consumer protection, case completion guidelines, and motions to terminate under the Howard memo.
CA9 Upholds IJ’s Finding of No Past Persecution But Reverses Finding of No Well-Founded Fear of Future Persecution
The court upheld the finding that Petitioner had not suffered past persecution but found that her fear of future harm, based on increasingly severe threats made in Peru by Shining Path during a seven-month period six years ago, was well-founded. (Canales-Vargas v. Gonzales, 3/21/06)
CA9 Holds IJ Statutory Interpretations Not Entitled to Chevron Deference But Concurs that Peruvian Civil Guardsman Assisted in Persecution
CA9 refused to give Chevron deference to IJ's statutory interpretation under the BIA streamlining process but found that substantial evidence supported finding that Petitioner personally assisted in acts that furthered the persecution of others. (Miranda-Alvarado v. Gonzales, 3/21/06)
CA9 Finds Peruvian Civil Guard Interpreter Assisted in Persecution
CA9 held that IJs’ statutory interpretations are not entitled to Chevron deference under the BIA streamlining process. The court then upheld the IJ’s determination that Petitioner personally assisted in acts that furthered the persecution of others. (Miranda-Alvarado v. Gonzales, 3/21/06)
CA2 Says IJ Erred in Denying Asylum for Lack of Doctrinal Knowledge
The court held that the IJ erred in finding Petitioner lacked credibility due to his limited knowledge of Christian doctrine without assessing the genuineness of his Christian beliefs. (Rizal v. Gonzales, 3/21/06)
CA7 Urges Litigants to Focus on Statutory and Regulatory Arguments before Raising Constitutional Claims
Rejecting the asylum applicant’s due process claim, CA7 reframed the claim as a denial of his right to a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and denied relief, citing failure to indicate what other evidence would have been presented given more time.(Rehman v. Gonzales, 3/20/06)
CIS Ombudsman Proposes Severe Changes to Asylum Process
A 3/20/06 proposal by Prakash Khatri, CIS Ombudsman, proposing, among other things, to limit the filing of asylum applications with USCIS to persons in nonimmigrant status, charge a fee for asylum applications, and shift authority for credible fear assessments to ICE.
CA2 Finds No Well-founded Fear of Persecution in China
The court denied asylum where Petitioner based his claim on the fear that he would be arrested and sent to a labor camp for twice distributing pro-democracy flyers when he was 16 years old. (Lin v. Gonzales, 3/17/06)
CA5 Upholds Finding of Changed Country Conditions and Denies Humanitarian Asylum to Kosovar Muslim
The court found that the evidence of changed conditions negated Petitioner’s individual fear of future persecution, and concluded that Petitioner’s past harm was not severe enough to merit a grant of humanitarian asylum. (Shehu v. Gonzales, 3/17/06)
CA9 Holds That Applicants for Admission, Including Asylum Seekers, Cannot Be Indefinitely Detained
The court held that the indefinite detention of applicants for admission “is unreasonable, unjustified, and in violation of federal law,” and granted Petitioner’s motion for immediate release under FRAP 23(b). (Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 3/17/06)
Text of the Securing America’s Borders Act
Text of the Securing America’s Borders Act (S. 2454), introduced by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) on 3/16/06.
CA7 Upholds Denial of Withholding of Removal Based on Changed Conditions in Uganda
CA7 found that the past harm was not sufficient to show entitlement to withholding of removal. It also found that it was impossible to predict that a renewal of hostilities is imminent or that Petitioner would be at risk if country conditions deteriorate. (Kobugabe v. Gonzales, 3/15/06)
CA7 Takes Jurisdiction in One-Year Deadline Case but Upholds IJ’s Denial of Asylum and Withholding of Removal
CA7 concluded that it had jurisdiction under REAL ID for appellate review of constitutional claims and questions of law, but the BIA’s error was harmless because circumstances in Zimbabwe have remained “business as usual.”(Mabasa v. Gonzales, 3/15/06)
CA7 Overrules IJ’s Finding that Albanian Asylum-Seeker Did Not Suffer Past Persecution
CA7 rejected the IJ’s finding that Petitioner was not a victim of persecution on account of his political activity, noting that since past persecution was shown, the burden should have shifted to the government to establish the lack of a well-founded fear. (Cecaj v. Gonzales, 3/15/06)