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
Judge Bars CBP Agents from Conducting Credible Fear Interviews
Granting the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, a district court judge barred CBP agents, who receive substantially less training than USCIS asylum officers, from conducting credible fear interviews for asylum seekers. (A.B.-B. v. Morgan, 8/31/20)
AILA and Partners Submit Amicus Brief on Barriers for Detained, Pro Se Asylum Seekers
AILA and partners submitted an amicus brief in the Third Circuit arguing that because of the hurdles detained, pro se asylum seekers face in presenting evidence to support their claims, the BIA must factor a pro se respondent’s detention into analysis of whether evidence is “reasonably available.”
DOJ Proposes Regulation to Turn Immigration Appeals into Tool of the Administration’s Anti-Immigrant Agenda
AILA Senior Policy Counsel Laura Lynch and AILA First Vice President Jeremy McKinney respond to a new rule proposed by DOJ that would overhaul Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) processes.
CA9 Reverses IJ’s and BIA’s Adverse Credibility Determination as to Asylum-Seeking Member of Minority Somali Clan
The court held that substantial evidence did not support the IJ’s and BIA’s adverse credibility determination, finding that, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the evidence compelled the conclusion that the Somali petitioner’s testimony was credible. (Iman v. Barr, 8/25/20)
CA3 Holds That “Substantial Evidence” Standard of Review Applies to an IJ’s Reasonable Fear Determinations
After holding that the substantial evidence standard applies to an IJ’s reasonable fear determinations, the court found that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s conclusion that the Mexican petitioner did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. (Romero v. Att’y Gen., 8/25/20)
CA9 Says Petitioner Seeking to Reopen Proceedings Was Not Required to Attach a New Application for Relief
The court held that the BIA abused its discretion in finding that a noncitizen who seeks to reopen an earlier application for relief, and attaches that application to the motion, has failed to attach the “appropriate application for relief” under 8 CFR §1003.2(c)(1). (Aliyev v. Barr, 8/24/20)
USCIS Issues Policy Alert on Procedures for Terminating Asylum Status in Relation to Consideration of an Application for Adjustment of Status
USCIS issued policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual to update and clarify the procedures USCIS officers follow when termination of asylum status is considered in relation to adjudicating an asylum-based adjustment of status application. The policy is effective 8/21/20; comments are due 9/22/20.
The Attorney General Solicits Amicus Briefs in Matter of A-M-R-C-
Referring a BIA decision to himself, the AG invites amicus briefs on issues related to effect of time of referral; serious nonpolitical crime bar and persecutor bar; and due process issues in respondent’s in absentia trial. Matter of A-M-R-C-, 28 I&N Dec. 7 (AG 2020). Amicus briefs due 9/29.
AILA Submits Comments Opposing EOIR’s Proposed Revision to the Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal
AILA submitted comments opposing EOIR’s proposed revision to Form I-589 and accompanying instructions. AILA noted that the revision, which lacks clarity, would increase time and cost burdens on applicants and would ultimately result in refugees losing their ability to seek protection in the U.S.
CA9 Remands Asylum Claims of Cameroonian Petitioner Who Lived in Hiding for a Year After Being Ordered to Marry Village Chieftain
Finding that substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s denial of asylum and related relief, the court held that petitioner’s ability to elude her pursuers did not establish that she would be able to avoid persecution or torture by relocating within Cameroon. (Akosung v. Barr, 8/14/20)
CA11 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Ethnic Tamil Petitioner Who Alleged Persecution by Sri Lankan Army
The court found that both the BIA and the IJ had explicitly considered whether the petitioner’s Tamil ethnicity or his imputed political opinion could have been one central reason for his alleged persecution by the Sri Lankan army. (Lingeswaran v. Att’y Gen., 8/13/20)
CA8 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Salvadoran Woman Who Feared Persecution by MS-13 Gang Members
The court held that the BIA did not err by concluding that the petitioner’s proposed social group—membership in her family—was not cognizable, finding that the petitioner’s financial resources was the central reason for her persecution by members of the MS-13 gang. (Fuentes v. Barr, 8/12/20)
CA7 Finds No Abuse of Discretion in BIA’s Denial of Guatemalan Single Mother’s Motions to Reopen and Reconsider
The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motions to reopen and reconsider, finding that she had rehashed the same arguments already considered, and that additional information submitted offered no new material evidence. (Lopez-Garcia v. Barr, 8/11/20)
CA9 Reaffirms That BIA Must Analyze Cognizability of Particular Social Groups on a Case-by-Case Basis
The court held that the BIA had misapplied Matter of A-B-, as well as past precedent, in concluding that the petitioner’s proposed social group comprised of “indigenous women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” was not cognizable. (Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 8/7/20)
CA9 Remands Asylum Claim of Nicaraguan Petitioner Who Suffered Frequent and Severe Abuse by Domestic Partner
Granting the petition for review, the court held that substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s conclusion that petitioner had failed to establish the Nicaraguan government was unable or unwilling to protect her from persecution by her domestic partner. (Davila v. Barr, 8/7/20)
Sometimes You Just Have to Take ‘Em to Court
AILA First Vice President Jeremy McKinney describes his first foray into litigation, and what tools and resources can help AILA members litigate and win cases, writing that litigation “can benefit your clients, it can benefit the immigration bar, and ultimately, it can benefit everyone.“
How To: Take Cases to Immigration Court
AILA Immigration Courts Conference Chair Michael Vastine shares insights on how AILA members can prepare themselves for immigration court, offering insights into the need to be “uniformly prepared, comprehensively trained, and conditioned to assertively and persuasively defend.“
AILA, the Council and Immigration Justice Campaign Submit Comments Opposing Pandemic-Related Security Bars to Asylum
AILA, the Council, and the Immigration Justice Campaign submitted comments opposing a proposed rule that would allow DHS and DOJ to consider pandemic-related emergency public health concerns when determining an individual’s ineligibility for asylum or withholding of removal on security grounds.
Practice Alert: Delayed I-589 Receipt Notices and Rejections by the Lockbox
AILA’s Asylum Committee provides a practice alert on recent reports from AILA members regarding delays in the issuance of Form I-589 receipt notices and ongoing problem of I-589 rejections by the Lockbox for leaving a legally irrelevant box blank.
CA5 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Albanian Citizen Who Received Death Threats from Members of Socialist Party
The court upheld the denial of asylum to the Albanian petitioner, who had been threatened and attacked by members of his country’s Socialist Party, finding no error in the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioner’s injuries did not amount to past persecution. (Gjetani v. Barr, 7/31/20)
CA8 Finds Petitioner Failed to Show He Would Likely Be Tortured in South Sudan Based on His Membership in an Ethnic Minority
The court held that the BIA had correctly found that petitioner, who was a member of an ethnic minority, must show more than a pattern of general ethnic violence in South Sudan to meet the likelihood of torture requirement under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). (Lasu v. Barr, 7/31/20)
DHS Provides Migrant Protection Protocols Metrics and Measures
DHS provided metrics and measures for the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) as of July 2020, including data on DHS’s intended goals for MPP and measurements of how those goals are being met. Per DHS, as of July 17, 2020, 63,623 individuals had enrolled in MPP, with 523 granted relief.
Ethical Considerations Related to Affirmatively Filing an Asylum Application for the Purpose of Applying for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment
Learn more about the significant ethical questions posed by submitting an affirmative asylum application with the goal of submitting an application for cancellation of removal, including candor to the tribunal, fees, what constitutes a frivolous application, and much more.
CA3 Holds IJ Failed to Reconsider Discretionary Denial of Asylum After Sri Lankan Petitioner Was Granted Withholding
Granting the petition for review, the court held that the IJ abused his discretion by failing to reconsider pursuant to 8 CFR §1208.16(e) his discretionary denial of asylum to the Sri Lankan petitioner, who was subsequently granted withholding of removal. (Sathanthrasa v. Att’y Gen., 7/30/20)
CA2 Finds Chinese Asylum Seeker Failed to Sufficiently Explain Inconsistencies in His Testimony
The court upheld the BIA’s asylum denial, finding that petitioner, who feared religious persecution in China, had failed to sufficiently explain inconsistencies in his testimony, and that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. (Gao v. Barr, 7/28/20)