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
CA3 Says Haitian Petitioner’s Former Counsel Provided Ineffective Assistance in Failing to Submit Readily Accessible Evidence
Where the petitioner’s former counsel had failed to present important and easily available evidence going to the heart of the petitioner’s claims, the court held that the BIA erred in denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. (Saint Ford v. Att’y Gen., 5/16/22)
CA11 Says That Noncitizen Who Was Denied Right to Counsel in Reasonable Fear Proceedings Must Show Substantial Prejudice
Denying the petition for review, the court held that even if petitioner had a right to counsel during his reasonable fear proceedings before the IJ under INA §238, he had failed to show that any purported due process violations caused him substantial prejudice. (Priva v. Att’y Gen., 5/12/22)
CA8 Upholds Asylum Denial to Guatemalan Petitioner Who Had Violent Encounter with Gang Members
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that the Guatemalan petitioner had failed to establish a nexus between his alleged persecution and either of his proposed social groups or a well-founded fear of future persecution. (Tojin-Tiu v. Garland, 5/12/22)
CA11 Concludes That BIA Provided Reasoned Consideration to Petitioner’s Racial Persecution Claim for Asylum
The court held that the BIA had provided reasoned consideration to the petitioner’s racial persecution claim, and that petitioner had failed to exhaust his claim that he was entitled to advance notice of the IJ’s need for specific corroborating evidence. (Lopez Morales v. Att’y Gen., 5/11/22)
CA7 Finds It Lacks Jurisdiction to Reweigh Factors IJ Considered in Making Particularly Serious Crime Determination
The court dismissed petitioner’s applications for adjustment of status and withholding of removal, finding that it was beyond its jurisdiction to reweigh the factors the IJ considered in determining that petitioner’s conviction was a particularly serious crime. (Kithongo v. Garland, 5/9/22)
Attorney General Overrules Matter of G-G-S-
The AG overruled Matter of G-G-S- and found immigration adjudicators may consider the respondent’s mental health in determining whether an individual convicted of a particularly serious crime constitutes a danger to the community. Matter of B-Z-R-, 28 I&N Dec. 563 (A.G. 2022)
CA1 Finds BIA Failed to Consider Petitioner’s Evidence That He Would Be Tortured by Private Militias and Armed Criminals in Somalia
The court vacated the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that BIA erred by not addressing petitioner’s argument that he would face torture from private militias and armed criminals in Somalia. (Ali v. Garland, 5/5/22)
Featured Issue: Use of Video Teleconferences During Immigration Hearings
Find resources related to the use of video teleconferencing (VTC) during immigration hearings. AILA believes that the use of this technology undermines the quality of communications during immigration hearings and threatens due process. Learn more now.
CA9 Finds BIA Erred in Deeming Homosexual Nigerian Petitioner’s Asylum Application Frivolous
The court held that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s frivolous asylum application determination and denial of Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief to the petitioner, who asserted a fear of persecution or torture in Nigeria based on his status as a gay man. (Udo v. Garland, 5/4/22)
Knowing the History of “The Huddled Masses”
In this blog post, AILA member and Law Journal author John Medeiros introduces his piece featured in the recent special edition of the AILA Law Journal celebrating AILA's 75 years; his piece “Huddled Masses“ chronicles the history of U.S. immigration and the development of U.S. immigration la
Asylum Cases on Frivolous Asylum Application
This issue-specific page lists published asylum cases that relate to frivolous asylum applications. The page includes published federal court and BIA cases from 2008 to the present. Special thanks to AILA member R. Mark Frey.
CA8 Remands Where BIA Failed to Address IJ’s Findings Regarding Petitioner’s Likely Treatment in an IDP Camp in Somalia
The court held that the BIA erred by resolving DHS’s appeal without addressing the IJ’s findings regarding the likely treatment of the petitioner, a member of a minority clan in Somalia who suffered from mental illness, in an internally displaced person (IDP) camp. (Salat v. Garland, 4/28/22)
CA9 Says BIA Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Finding Petitioner Did Not Warrant Equitable Tolling of Motion to Reopen
Where petitioner filed a motion to reopen 16 years after the statutory deadline, the court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding he did not warrant equitable tolling of the time limit based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. (Hernandez-Ortiz v. Garland, 4/26/22)
CA9 Concludes It Can Deny Petition Based on BIA’s Lack of Jurisdiction Even Where BIA Did Not Rule on That Basis
Upholding the BIA’s denial of petitioner’s motion to reopen, the court concluded that it could properly deny a petition for review based on the BIA’s lack of jurisdiction under INA §241(a)(5), even where the BIA did not rely on that jurisdictional bar. (Gutierrez-Zavala v. Garland, 4/26/22)
Secretary Mayorkas Issues Memo on DHS Plan for Southwest Border Security and Preparedness
On 4/26/22, DHS issued a memorandum with details on how the agency is leading the execution of a whole-of-government plan to prepare for and manage increased encounters of noncitizens at the southwest border, including elements that will be implemented once Title 42 border expulsions are terminated.
AILA and Partners Submit Amicus Brief on the Nonstate Actor Test
AILA and partners submitted a brief urging the court to apply the de novo standard of review to the agency’s legal analysis in regards to the nonstate actor test, grant the petition for review, and remand for the BIA to apply correct standard of review and unable-or-unwilling nonstate actor test.
AILA Member Talking Points on Expulsions at the Border
AILA members may find these talking points useful for interviews with reporters covering the expulsions at the southern border and the return to Title 8.
DHS 5-Day Notice and Request for Comments on New MPP Disenrollment Request System
DHS 5-day notice and request for comments on a new public-facing Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) Disenrollment Request website. Comments are due 4/26/22. (87 FR 23879, 4/21/22)
AILA and Partners Urge President Biden to End Title 42 Border Expulsions
On 4/21/22, leaders of immigrant, civil rights, humanitarian, labor, and human rights organizations sent a letter to President Biden urging him to end border expulsions under Title 42 and to oppose congressional attempts to keep the border expulsion policy in place via legislation.
CA4 Says BIA Did Not Err in Considering Aggregate Risk of Torture as to Salvadoran Petitioner
Upholding the denial of Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief, the court held that the IJ did not improperly conflate risks posed by the police and vigilante groups, and that BIA correctly reviewed the IJ’s finding under the clearly erroneous standard. (Ibarra Chevez v. Garland, 4/15/22)
CBP Releases Statement on Transportation of Migrants to Washington, D.C.
CBP released a statement regarding the transportation of migrants to Washington, D.C. The statement specifies that “Governor Abbott is taking actions to move migrants without adequately coordinating with the federal government and local border communities.”
Five Tips to Minimize Retraumatizing Your Clients
Every time a client must tell their traumatic experiences, there is a potential for retraumatizing them. Minimize that effect and improve your advocacy through these five essential tips from the popular roundtable The Trauma-Informed Practice & Lawyering Skills.
CA5 Finds Asylum Applicant Failed to Show Honduran Government Was Unable or Unwilling to Control Her Persecutors
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding that the petitioner, who had been abused as a child and threatened by the MS-13 gang, did not show that the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to control her alleged persecutors. (Sanchez-Amador v. Garland, 4/11/22)
AILA Makes Suggestions to USCIS to Address I-730 Processing Delays
AILA's Asylum and Refugee National Committee sent a letter to Ted H. Kim, Acting Director of USCIS RAIO Directorate, with suggestions for tackling the delays in processing of I-730 applications.
CA7 Fines Attorney Who Failed to Pay Docketing Fee or Submit in Forma Pauperis Motion on Client’s Behalf
The court dismissed the petition for review for failure to pay the docketing fee or to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in compliance with Fed. R. App. P. Rule 24(b), and ordered the petitioner’s attorney to pay a fine of $1,000. (Camacho-Valdez v. Garland, 4/6/22)