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
CA9 Finds IJ Discounted Probative Evidence on Flimsy Grounds and Displayed Dubious Understanding of How Rape Survivors Should Act
Granting the petition for review of the BIA’s denial of asylum and remanding, the court held that the IJ erred by failing to give specific, cogent reasons for rejecting petitioner’s reasonable, plausible explanations for the discrepancies tied to her declaration. (Munyuh v. Garland, 8/25/21)
CA5 Finds BIA Abused Its Discretion by Entirely Failing to Address Libyan Petitioner’s CAT Claim
The court held that the BIA abused its discretion by entirely failing to address the Libyan petitioner’s Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim, where the petitioner had raised his CAT claim several times in his briefing before the BIA. (Abushagif v. Garland, 9/24/21)
CA6 Finds Asylum Applicant Did Not Show Guatemalan Government Was Unable to Protect Women from Persecution by Individuals
The court held that the petitioner did not meet her burden of proving that the Guatemalan government is or was unable or unwilling to protect women from the persecution that she claimed to fear—namely, violence or kidnapping by private individuals. (Ramos Rafael v. Garland, 9/24/21)
Chicago Asylum Office and AILA Minnesota/Dakotas Liaison Meeting Minutes (9/23/21)
Minutes from AILA’s Asylum Committee meeting with Chicago’s Asylum Office. Minutes include various questions posed by the Asylum Committee.
CA9 Says BIA Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Finding Petitioner’s 2016 Motion Was Untimely or in Declining to Sua Sponte Reopen
The court concluded that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that the petitioner’s 2016 motion to reopen was untimely, nor did it commit legal error in declining to sua sponte reopen her case. (Cui v. Garland, 9/23/21)
CA3 Reverses Denial of Asylum to Petitioner Who Fled Yemen to Avoid Persecution on Account of Political Opinion
Where the Yemeni petitioner had been kidnapped and tortured before being convicted and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for political opposition to the Houthi regime, the court concluded that the BIA erred in determining that he was ineligible for asylum. (Ghanem v. Att’y Gen., 9/22/21)
AILA and Partners Urge White House to Change Course After Violations to Asylum Rights and Refugee Laws on Haitians
AILA and partners sent a letter to the White House requesting that deportation flights to Haiti stop, restoration for asylum access at ports of entry, rescind the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s expulsion order, and issue a new termination memo for the Migrant Protection Protocols.
CA9 Finds Inconsistencies in Petitioner’s Asylum and Visa Applications Were Sufficient to Support Adverse Credibility Determination
Where the petitioner claimed she was persecuted because of her membership in a house church that was not registered with the Chinese government, the court held that the BIA appropriately relied on two inconsistencies in making its adverse credibility determination. (Li v. Garland, 9/21/21)
AILA: Goal of Resettling More Refugees Promising But Biden Must Do More
AILA welcomed President Biden’s move to increase the refugee “cap” to 125,000 for FY2022, but AILA President Allen Orr hoped, “the administration will recognize the urgency and aim to resettle 200,000 refugees which is consistent with the levels given protection during major refugee emergencies.”
DOS Provides Proposed Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for FY2022
DOS provided the President’s Report to Congress on the proposed Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for FY2022. The report recommends an increase in the refugee admissions target from 62,500 in FY2021 to 125,000 in FY2022, prioritizes admissions, states ORR goals, and more.
CA8 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Guatemalan Petitioner Whose Family Refused to Give Money to Gangs
The court upheld BIA’s denial of asylum, finding petitioner’s proposed particular social group of “family unaffiliated with any gangs who refuse to provide any support to transnational criminal gangs in Guatemala” lacked particularity and social distinction. (Osorio Tino v. Garland, 9/20/21)
AILA Joins Sign-On Letter Urging the Administration to End Title 42 Expulsions and MPP
After a federal district court held that the government likely does not have authority to implement the Title 42 policy and enjoined the use of the policy against families with young children, AILA urged the administration to stop blocking asylum seekers and restore access at our ports of entry.
BIA Finds Conviction Does Not Bar Respondent from Seeking a 212(h) Waiver
The BIA remanded record to IJ for further proceedings after finding that a person who enters as a refugee and later adjusts is not precluded from establishing eligibility for a 212(h) waiver. Matter of N-V-G-, 28 I&N Dec. 380 (BIA 2021)
Second Extension of Effective Date of USCIS Temporary Final Rule on Interpreters at Asylum Interviews
USCIS temporary final rule extending the expiration date of the temporary final rule on interpreters at asylum interviews published at 85 FR 59655, which was set to expire on 9/20/21, through 3/16/22. (86 FR 51781, 9/17/21)
AILA and Partners Send Letter Urging the Administration to Stop Blocking Asylum Seekers
AILA joined 71 organizations in sending a letter in response to the notice of appeal in the Huisha-Huisha litigation urging the administration to restore access to U.S. asylum at ports of entry and immediately stop blocking and expelling asylum seekers and migrants.
District Court Orders Border Officials to Stop Expelling Certain Families under Title 42
The court granted motions for class certification and preliminary injunction (the PI was stayed for 14 days), to prevent U.S. border officials from using Title 42 to expelling families with young children seeking asylum. (Huisha-Huisha, et al. v. Mayorkas, 9/16/21)
AILA President Allen Orr Responds to Today’s Court Decision on Title 42
AILA President Allen Orr responded to Judge Sullivan’s ruling that the use of Title 42 against families with young children seeking asylum is illegal, noting the U.S. “can and must protect public health while honoring our humanitarian values and policies that offer protection to asylum seekers.”
USCIS Updates Policy Guidance on Refugee and Asylee Adjustment of Status Interviews
USCIS released updated policy guidance, effective 9/16/21, revising the criteria that applies when determining whether to refer an asylee or refugee adjustment applicant for an interview. Policy also includes criteria relating to a principal applicant’s underlying asylum claim.
We Know Litigation Works, But How Do You Get Started?
In this blog post, expert litigator and past AILA president Ron Klasko gives a few examples of cases that could benefit from litigation, and highlights the upcoming Federal Court Conference as a chance to learn skills to help your clients.
DOS and DHS Release Statement on CAM Application Approval
DOS and DHS released a statement announcing that the Central American Minors (CAM) program will begin accepting new applications as of 9/14/21. Statement also included a reminder that eligibility for the program was also expanded.
CA9 Says IJ Provided Sufficient Safeguards During Removal Proceedings to Accommodate Petitioner’s Mental Illness
The court held that petitioner, a lawful permanent resident who had been found mentally incompetent, had received adequate safeguards in his removal proceedings, and had failed to exhaust his claim regarding the IJ’s “particularly serious crime” determination. (Benedicto v. Garland, 9/9/21)
CA9 Concludes IJ’s Finding That Petitioner Was Not a Christian Was Unsupported by Substantial Evidence (Withdrawn)
The court held that the law-of-the-case doctrine did not require it to accept a prior panel’s determination that the petitioner was not a Christian, and found he was not required to reattach his application for relief to his motion to reopen. (Etemadi v. Garland, 9/9/21, withdrawn 6/23/22)
CA9 Holds That Single Factor Rule Conflicts with REAL ID Act of 2005
The en banc court overruled prior circuit precedents establishing and applying the single factor rule, which required the court to sustain an adverse credibility determination by the BIA if one of the agency’s identified grounds was supported by substantial evidence. (Alam v. Garland, 9/8/21)
CA11 Finds Petitioner Failed to Preserve Whether His Defective NTA Violated BIA’s Claim-Processing Rules
The court held that petitioner had failed to preserve whether his defective Notice to Appear (NTA) violated BIA’s claim-processing rules, and found he was removable for his controlled substance conviction, or alternatively, his second-degree assault conviction. (Farah v. Att’y Gen., 9/8/21)
CA9 Upholds BIA’s Refusal to Allow Petitioner to Seek Asylum in Light of Reinstatement of His Prior Removal Order
The court held that because the petitioner’s prior removal order was reinstated, he had no right under the INA to seek asylum and no constitutional right to have DHS consider whether, as a discretionary matter, to decline to reinstate that order. (Iraheta-Martinez v. Garland, 9/7/21)