Chief Immigration Judge Memo on Asylum Application Processing

March 15, 1996

MEMORANDUM

To: All Assistant Chief Immigration Judges
All Immigration Judges
All Court Administrators
All Support Staff

From: Michael J. Creppy
Chief Immigration Judge

Subjects: Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum No. 96-1, Asylum Request Processing

This Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum (OPPM) SUPESEDES OPPM No. 90-8, Asylum Application Processing, dated November 29, 1990, and OPPM No. 95-1, dated October 18. 1995. These procedures are effective upon receipt.

The new asylum regulations were sent to each Court in December, 1994. This memorandum reflects our experience in implementing those regulations and provides a transition from the interim practices we have been employing to final guidelines and operating policies for implementing these new asylum regulations, which became effective on January 4, 1995.

Table of Contents

Subject Page

I. Background………………………………………………. 3v II. Due Process Concerns…………………………………. 4
III. Asylum Application (Form I-589)………………………. 4
A. Required Forms………………………………….. 4
B. Court Administrators’ Responsibility……………. 4
IV. Confidentiality of Applications for Asylum……………. 4
A. Records of Proceedings (ROP)………………… 4v B. Alien’s Attorney/Representative………………… 4
C. Applicant’s Written Consent…………………….. 5
V. Filing a Motion to Reopen………………………………… 5
VI. Differential Case Management……………………………5
VII. Criteria to Determine Expedited Asylum Cases…………5
A. Affirmative Applications…………………………..5
B. Defensive Applications……………………………6
C. Complete Applications…………………………… 6v VIII. Scheduling Asylum Cases…………………………………7v A. Failure to Prosecute……………………………….7
B. Referring the Affirmative Application…………….7
C. Filing the Defensive Application…………………..8
D. Filing in Detail Cities……………………………….9
E. Change of Venue…………………………………..9
F. Scheduling the Expedited Master Calendar…….9
G. Criteria for Determining Expedited Individual Calendar…………………………………….10
H. Scheduling the Expedited Individual Calendar…10
I. The Clock………………………………………… ..11v J. Double Booking…………………………………….11
K. Adjournment Codes………………………………..12
L. Manual Back-Up Method of Calendaring………..12
M. Asylum Case Receipts and Calendar Monitoring………………….13
N. Pre-Reform Asylum Cases………………………..14

IX. Department of State Requests/Comments…………..14
A. Sending the Asylum Applications (Form I-589) to the Department of State for an Advisory Opinion………………………………………………..14
B. Immigration Judges’ Special Requests to DOS….16
C. DOS Advisory Opinions/Responses………………16
D. Sending DOS Advisory Opinions/Responses to the Immigration Courts………………………… 17
E. Transmittal of DOS Advisory Opinions/Responses to Parties…………………… 17
F. DOS “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices”……………………………………………..17
G. Problems with Requests for Advisory Opinions…..18
X. Designation of Court Personnel Responsible for Asylum Applications……………………………………..19
XI. Conclusion…………………………………………………20
XII. Supplementary Documents………………………………20
Attachment A: Notices of Delayed Hearing Due to Failure to Prosecute………………………..App.
Attachment B: Sample Transmittal Letter to DOS…..App.
Attachment C: Sample of DOS “Sticker” Response…App.
Attachment D: Sample of DOS “Letter” Response…..App.

I. Background

Previous Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) policy allowed aliens to apply for work authorization at the same time they filed the application for asylum (FORM I-589). Where the application for work authorization was not adjudicated within 90 days from the date of filing, work authorization was automatically granted. The asylum regulations promulgated on December 5, 1994, and effective January 4, 1995, were designed to “decouple” the work authorization application process from the asylum adjudication process. The intent of these regulatory revisions was to provide expedited case processing for valid asylum seekers and a system to deny frivolous claims filed primarily to obtain work authorization.

Our processing goal for asylum applications filed wit Immigration Court under the new asylum regulations is 180 days for filing to completion. Asylum applicants may not file for work authorization until day 150 and the INS will have an additional 30 days to complete that process if the asylum claim is still pending at that time.

While there are numerous valid reasons for granting adjournment(s) in any case, adjournments are sometimes sought merely for the purpose of interposing delay in the adjudication process. As one means of reducing the frequency of unnecessary delays, the new regulations stop (or toll) the clock for any applicant-caused hearing delay. When the clock is stopped, the number of days during which the delay continues are not counted against the 180-day goal set for adjudication of the asylum application.

The new asylum regulations also allow Asylum Officers to use information contained in asylum applications filed on or after January 4, 1995, as a basis to create a charging document and institute proceedings. In addition, Asylum Officers may no “refer” asylum cases to an Immigration Judge (IJ) for further adjudication instead of denying the claim.

II. Due Process Concerns

In striving to meet our processing goals we must ensure the due process rights of the asylum application. With this in mind, Immigration Judges must continue to give due consideration to requests from all parties for time to present their cases adequately at the Individual Calendar Hearing. Accordingly, all Judges should exercise judicial discretion in allocating Individual Calendar hearing time.

III. Asylum Application (Form I-589)

A. Required Forms: 8 C.F.R. S. 208.3 requires that Forms I-589 (Request for Asylum in the United States) and FD-258 (Fingerprint Card) shall be available form each Immigration Court. The revised Form I-589 dated November 16, 1994 is the only asylum application that will be accepted for filing. Please note: an asylum application received as a referral from the INS is not considered a filing.

B. Court Administrators’ Responsibility: Each Court Administrator shall ensure that an ample supply of Forms I-589 and FD-258 are maintained at the Courts, to be available upon request.

IV. Confidentiality of Applications for Asylum

A. Records of Proceedings (ROP): 8 C.F.R. S 208.6 prohibits the disclosure of an application for asylum, except as permitted by S. 208.6 or at the discretion of the Attorney General, to third parties without the written consent of the applicant.

B. Alien’s Attorney/Representative: An attorney/representative for an alien who has filed an application for asylum with an Immigration Court may view the ROP with the application provided the attorney/representative has a current EOIR-28 filed with the Immigration Court having administrative control over the ROP.

C. Applicant’s Written Consent: The asylum applicant may submit a written, signed request to the Immigration Court having administrative control of the ROP to permit any person(s) named in the request to view the ROP.

V. Filing a Motion to Reopen

8 C.F.R. S 103.7 states that: “No fee shall be charged for a motion to reopen or reconsider a decision on an application for which no fee is chargeable”. Therefore, no fee will be charged for a motion to reopen or reconsider a decision on an application for asylum.

VI. Differential Case Management

To facilitate compliance with the new asylum regulations, the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ) has established a modified version of Differential Case Management for use in the Immigration Court. This method calls for designating certain cases as “expedited” cases which will be calendared to an expedited hearing track. For our purposes, certain asylum cases will be designated for expedited hearings.

VII. Criteria to Determine Expedited Asylum Cases

Differential Case Management requires that criteria be established to determine which cases should be designated as expedited for calendaring purposes. The following criteria have been set to determine expedited asylum cases:

A. Affirmative Applications: Only those asylum applications initially filed with an INS Asylum Officer for adjudication will be classified as affirmative applications. Expedited designation is only applicable to those cases where: 1) the asylum applicant receipt date by the INS is on or after January 4, 1995; 2) the Master Calendar hearing date d was established within 75 days from the date of receipt of the Form I-589 by the Asylum Office (see Scheduling the Expedited Master Calendar section in this memorandum); 3) the charging document is filed with the Immigration Court not later than 7 days before the Master Calendar hearing; and 4) the clock has not been stopped. Please note: neither the issue date nor the date on which the OSC was service is relevant in determining whether an affirmative claim will be expedited.

B. Defensive Applications: Asylum applications initially filed with the Immigration Court shall be designated as defensive applications. Expedited designation is applicable to any case in which the Form I-589 is filed with the Court as a defensive claim at the Master Calendar or the Master Calendar reset and the Form I-6\589 is filed on or after January 4, 1995. Please note: neither the issue date for the date on which the OSC was served is relevant in determining whether a defensive claim will be expedited.

All defensive claims meeting these criteria shall receive expedited scheduling for Individual Calendar hearings. Such cases will retain expedited status even where the clock stops due to alien-caused delay and should be set to the first available Individual Calendar date (IA or II) on the calendar of the Case Assigned Judge. In the event the Case Assigned Judge can not hear the case within 180 days, the case must be set to the first available Individual Calendar date (IA or II) of any other Judge within the 180 days period.

C. Complete Applications: All affirmative asylum applications referred to the Immigration Court by the INS must contain all supporting documentation. The Court Administrator will notify the INS of any incomplete applications. All defensive asylum applications filed directly with the Court must be compete. Defensive applications that do not contain all supporting documentation are incomplete applications and will not be accepted for filing. Such applications will be returned to the filing party and the appropriate adjournment code will be entered.

VIII. Scheduling Asylum Cases

The following are the policies and procedures for Scheduling Master and Individual Calendars.

A. Failure to Prosecute: In the event the Asylum Office files the charging document later than 7 days prior to the scheduled Master Calendar hearing, the court will deem the case a Failure to Prosecute (FTP). If this should occur, the case may not go forward as originally scheduled even if the applicant appears, unless the Court Administrator determines that there is sufficient time to create the ROP. In those cases where the FTP does not go forward, the 180-day clock will continue to run.

If the charging document is filed later than 7 days prior to the hearing and the case does not go forward at that time, the applicant should receive in-personam (persona) notice of any rescheduled hearing whenever possible. If the charging document is not filed with the Court at all, the applicant should be advised of the reason for delay by giving him or her the attached information sheet. (see Attachment A).

B. Referring the Affirmative Application: If an affirmative asylum application is not granted by the Asylum Office and the alien is in illegal status, it will be referred to the Immigration Court by the INS Asylum Office. Charging documents filed by the Asylum Office will also contain a copy of the asylum application being referred, along with any supporting documents. The copy of the application and supporting documents referred to the Court may not contain any annotation or other information of a deliberative nature regarding the application (other than administrative corrections to the application, as affirmed by the applicant’s signature in Part H of the application). Other than the application and supporting documents, only the ANSIR-generated INS Referral Sheet should be filed with the Court. Under no circumstances should any document containing reference to INS credibility findings be filed with the Court. If this does occur, the Court Administrator should promptly notify the INS to discontinue any such filings and return those documents to INS prior to filing the application in the ROP.

Charging Documents - Court staff should continue to be more flexible in their review of charging documents. Documents should not be rejected because of typographical errors. Substantive deficiencies must be decided by the Master Calendar Judge. It is imperative that Court Administrators ensure that the ROPs are created in a timely manner after receipt of the charging document.

Certificate of Translation - Failure to complete the Certificate of Translation on the OSC does not render service of the OSC defective for purposes of proceeding with the deportation hearing. An indication that the contents were not explained to a non-English speaking applicant in his/her native language does not render service defective. Rather, such omissions may affect the forms of discretionary relief available if the applicant fails to appear at an asylum hearing.

C. Filing the Defensive Application: Local Court rules notwithstanding, including any such rules related to the filing of Motions for a Change of Venue, defensive asylum applications can only be filed with the Immigration Court at a Master Calendar or a Master Calendar reset hearing. Under no circumstances shall the Form I-589 be filed at the window or by mail. Accordingly, no Immigration Judge shall issue a call-up date for filing the Form I-589 unless such a date is for an appearance at a Master Calendar or a Master Calendar reset hearing. Furthermore, the Immigration Judge should also ensure that pleadings have been taken and that all other matters have been resolved prior to scheduling the asylum case for an Individual Calendar hearing. This might require additional Master Calendar appearances prior to the scheduling of an Individual Calendar hearing.

Individual Calendar hearing time for expedited asylum cases can only be entered into the ANSIR System after an asylum application received date has been entered. The received date for defensive claims will be the date the application is accepted for filing at the Master Calendar or Master Calendar reset hearing. The filing party will be required to submit an original completed Form I- 589, one copy and a Certificate of Service establishing notice to the opposing party. Pursuant to 8 C.F. R. S 208.3(a) one additional copy of the principal applicant’s form I-589 must be submitted for each dependent listed on the principal’s application.

D. Filing in Detail Cities: In appropriate circumstances the Immigration Judge has the discretion to permit the filing of the Form I-589, supporting documents and other documentary evidence during telephonic Master Calendar hearings or Master Calendar reset hearings.

E. Change of Venue: A Motion for a Change of Venue (COV) must contain a copy of the proposed Form I-589 which the applicant intends to file at the new or transfer location. This copy of the Form I-589 WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR FILING BY THE COURT ADJUDICATING THE COV NOR WILL THE RECEIVING COURT ENTER A RECEIVED DATE INTO THE ANSIR COMPUTER, NOR WILL THE 180-DAY CLOCK BEGIN TO RUN. If the COV is granted, the asylum applicant must then file the original of the Form I-589 with the Court to which the case has been transferred. That Court will then accept the application for filing, enter the asylum received date into the ANSIR computer and start the running of the 180-day clock.

F. Scheduling the Expedited Master Calendar: Each Asylum Office can obtain Master Calendar hearing dates for affirmative applications by using ANSIR’s Interactive Scheduling System (ISS). This calendaring software provides the place, date and time of Master Calendar hearings to the Asylum Officer, who will include this information on or with the charging document.

In personam service of the charging document is the goal of each Asylum Office. Charging documents will be sent by Certified Mail in those instances where in personam service is not feasible, (detail city locations or failure to appear for the Asylum Officer’s decision/referral). Those applicants receiving in personam service will be calendared for Master Calendar hearing no earlier than 17 days from the date of service of the charging document. Applicants receiving their charging documents by Certified Mail will be scheduled for Master Calendar hearings no earlier than 45 days from the date that INS accesses the ANSIR computer to obtain a Master Calendar hearing date.

Defensive asylum applications cannot be designated as expedited cases until the Form I-589 is filed with the Immigration Court. Where additional time is needed to file the Form I-589, the case must be set to a Master Calendar reset hearing to accept the filing of the asylum application. Once the Form I-589 has been filed the case can be set to an expedited Individual Calendar.

G. Criteria for Determining Expedited Individual Calendar: No asylum case can receive an expedited designation for the Individual Calendar unless the clock has not moved beyond 180 days.

H. Scheduling the Expedited Individual Calendar: With a year of experience in implementing the new asylum regulations we have been able to balance asylum time across the immigration Judge corps. Based on this experience there appears no longer to be a need to establish agendas for certain Immigration Judges to hear solely asylum cases.

Effective immediately or at the earliest practicable date, agendas will be modified to ensure that all Immigration Judges have sufficient Master and Individual Calendar time to allow them to set expedited asylum cases to their own Individual Calendars.

However, please not, if a Master Calendar Judge does not have time available on his or her own calendar to complete an expedited asylum case within 180 days, the Judge must schedule the case to the first available date on the calendar of ANY OTHER IMMIGRATION JUDGE within that 180- day period.

Generally, when setting a case from the Master Calendar to the Individual Calendar, a minimum of 14 days should be allowed before the case is set for the individual hearing. The time period may be shortened if requested by the applicant or if the two-week delay would prevent the Court from completing the case within 180 days.

All defensive asylum cases where in the Form I-589 was filed on orafter January 4, 1995 will be treated as expedited claims for the purpose of setting the Individual Calendar. The Immigration Judge and the Court Administrator must ensure that all such defensive asylum claims are set to individual expedited asylum (IA) slots or II slots, whichever are available first.

I. The Clock: The INSIR System software has been modified to report the number of days that have passed since the filing of the asylum application. This information is available to Immigration Court staff during the scheduling process to assist with calendaring expedited cases. The I-800 number for the public to access case status information is now available. Information is provided regarding future hearing dates, status of the clock for asylum cases, completion information, appeals information, filing information and the name of the Immigration Judge to whom the case has been assigned. The 800 number is I-800-898-7180. The I-800 number will now be listed at the bottom of all hearing notices.

J. Double Booking: Double booking of cases is permissible on a court-by- court bases to maximize use of available Judge time. Where double booking facilitates case flow and does not jeopardize standards of due process or fairness it should be encouraged. The practice of double booking can only be employed after consultation with and approval of the Assistant Chief Immigration Judge having oversight responsibility for your Court.

Whenever double booking is employed it is essential that beginning and end times be accurately entered into the ANSIR system to avoid confusion in using the automated calendaring system.

K. Adjournment Codes: All continuances granted in asylum cases must be accurately assigned to the appropriate requesting party, (Applicant, INS, or EOIR). This is critical information since the automatic tolling mechanism ANSIR is directly linked to the reason for adjournment. Immigration Judges must ensure that they have accurately indicated on their IJ Worksheet the specific reason for adjournment. Clerks or language specialists entering information into the ANSIR system must also ensure that adjournment codes are accurately entered. This information may also be used for management reports in the future should the need arise.

If the applicant rejects the first available date for an Individual Calendar hearing (not less than 14 days from the date of the Master Calendar), the proper adjournment code is 22. Entering this code will stop the clock. The clock will remain stopped until the applicant returns to Court on the date selected by him/her for the next hearing. Thus, if on August 1, 1995, the Court offers the date of August 15 and the applicant selects September 1, 1995, the adjournment code will be 22 and the clock will be stopped for the entire period of time from August 1 to September 1, 1995.

If the date selected by the alien is less than 24 hours from the first date generated by ANSIR the proper adjournment code will be 17. Code 23 is the proper adjournment code to be entered whenever an applicant withdraws the asylum application.

L. Manual Back-Up Method of Calendaring: While we do not anticipate ANSIR system downtown we should still be prepared for any unexpected automated system failure or scheduled system-wide downtime for maintenance. Court Administrators must develop a plan of action to be used in the event the ANSIR system goes down and must devise a way to provide a hard copy list of available Master Calendar dates to the Asylum Office. This list can be obtained ahead of time where system maintenance is scheduled in advance or by accessing your calendars through Central Site should system failure occur. The Automated Systems Court personnel will assist you in developing your course of action.

In addition, the weekly IJ Schedule Report can serve as a backup system. Every day, as part of the batch program, a Weekly IJ Schedule Report will print out. This report can be used to view future hearing dates in the event of a local computer crash.

M. Asylum Case Receipts and Calendar Monitoring: In order to meet our processing goal of adjudicating expedited asylum cases within 180 days, we must constantly monitor the status of these cases. Court Administrators will be expected to review asylum cases frequently in order to advise the ACIJ as to whether calendars need to be adjusted.

In the event the system becomes so full that expedited Master Calendar hearings are being set at or beyond day 107, the Court Administrator, in consultation with Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, must take appropriate corrective action. Such action may include, but is not limited to: 1) increasing expedited Master Calendar slots: 2) requesting additional Immigration Judge/Court personnel resources through details; 3) converting administrative time to expedited calendar time; or 4) rescheduling non-expedited cases.

N. Pre-Reform Asylum Cases: Cases for which the asylum received date is prior to January 4, 1995, will be categorized as “pre-reform” cases. Pre-reform cases are eligible for employment authorization within 90 days from the date of receipt of the application by INS. These cases are not expedited. However, these cases are governed by the new asylum regulations in that they can be granted or referred to the Immigration Court by INS. INS will no longer deny these cases. However, OSCs cannot be based on the information contained in a pre-reform asylum application.

Pre-reform asylum cases will fall into one of two categories. They will have been adjudicated or they will not. The Immigration Court will only see those cases where the asylum claim was denied and an OSC issued. When this type of case reaches the Immigration Court there is no affirmative duty for the Court to take any action regarding the old asylum claim because that application will have been previously decided by the INS. The alien may choose to file a new application for asylum. This will be a defensive asylum application. The new asylum application will be an expedited claim because: 1) it will have been filed at a Master Calendar or a Master Calendar reset hearing; and 2) the asylum received date will be after January 4, 1995. This defensive claim will be subject tot he 180-day clock.

The other category of pre-reform asylum claim is that in which the INS did not conduct an interview and render a decision prior to January 4, 1995. Because these cases were pending adjudication on January 4, 1995, their adjudication is governed by the reform regulations and such cases will be referred to the Immigration Court. There is no clock running on these cases as they are referred as non-expedited asylum cases. They can never become expedited cases. With leave of Court, the respondent may be permitted to supplement the existing asylum application. However, regardless of the extent to which the pending asylum application is supplemented (including the substitution of a new Form I-589 for the original Form I-589), the asylum received date will remain the date on which the original asylum application was filed with the INS. No new asylum received date can be entered into the ANSIR system.

IX. DEPARTMENT OF STATE REQUEST/COMMENTS

A. Sending the Asylum Application (Form I-589) to the Department of State for Advisory Opinion: Affirmative asylum applications will not be forwarded to the Department of State (DOS) by the Immigration Court, absent special circumstances, because the INS’s Asylum Office is required to have done so prior to adjudicating the application it has referred to the Court. The following sets forth the procedures for requesting an opinion on defensive asylum applications:

1. When to send the request for a defensive asylum application advisory opinion to DOS: A defensive asylum application must be forwarded to the DOS for an advisory opinion as soon as possible after an Immigration Judge accepts it for filing at a Master Calendar or Master Calendar reset hearing and sets an individual hearing date. A defensive asylum application included as part of an ROP received on a Motion to Change Venue, should not be sent to DOS upon receipt of the ROP, but forwarded only after the party has filed the original of the Form I-589 with the Court at a Master Calendar or Master Calendar Reset hearing and Individual Calendar hearing date has been set.

2. Transmittal Letter: A properly created transmittal letter attached to a complete and legible asylum application (Form I- 589 and any attachments) is the appropriate EOIR “request for an advisory opinion.” Immigration Court personnel will only prepare the standard transmittal letter to the DOS requesting an advisory opinion for defensive asylum applications. The Immigration Court personnel will ensure that the future hearing date that Individual Calendar hearing date set by the Immigration Judge. The standard transmittal letter must also indicate if the alien is detained or non-detained, or if attachments mentioned in the application were not submitted. (Copy of transmittal letter is Attachment B)

3. Where to send the request for an advisory opinion: The Immigration Court personnel will send the standard transmittal letter, Form I-589 and attachments to the DOS at the following address using overnight mail:

Office of Asylum Affairs
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20520

B. Immigration Judges’ Special Requests to DOS: In its continuing effort to serve as a resource to Immigration Judges conducting asylum adjudications, DOS has suggested that if critical issues are raised in the asylum application or during a hearing, the Immigration Judge could submit this critical issue to DOS in writing as a “specific question.” To the extent that resources allow, DOS will respond to these “specific questions” in a timely manner.

Immigration Judges who feel they need more information than is provided in the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices or Profiles of Asylum Claims may make specific requests on an individual case basis. In those instances, requests should be made through the Central Operations Unit, Office of the Chief Immigration Judge. Such requests should list specific questions or concerns the Immigration Judge would like the advisory opinion to address.

C. DOS Advisory Opinions/Responses: At its option, DOS will respond to our requests for advisory opinions as follows:

1. Advisory Opinion Letters: DOS will review and prepare written advisory opinions on asylum applications selected by DOS that require information they fell is not routinely available to Immigration Judges in the State Department’s current Country Report on Human Rights Practices.

2. No Specific DOS Responses: Asylum applications not selected for review by DOS will be returned to EOIR (see Attachment C) with a label or “sticker” placed onto the EOIR standard transmittal letter stating:

“The office has no factual material about this specific applicant. Information on human rights practices in the country of the applicant’s nationality may be found in the State Department’s current Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.”

This will be the ONLY response we will receive from the DOS on these asylum applications. However, if no response is received by the time of the hearing, the Immigration Judge should proceed and not continue the case to await a DOS response. In addition, Immigration Judges will NOT re- submit to DOS an asylum application returned by the DOS to EOIR without an advisory opinion letter. Therefore, Individual Calendar hearings for asylum cases will NOT be continued on the calendar for the purpose of re-submitting an asylum application responded to in this manner.

3. “Generic” Response: In some cases, DOS will provide EOIR with “generic” information which will be useful in understanding the human rights situation in the applicant’s country (see Attachment D). This information will be in addition to that found in the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices but will NOT specifically address the asylum application.

D. Sending DOS Advisory Opinions/Responses to the Immigration Courts: In order to ensure that DOS advisory opinions/responses are received by Immigration Courts, DOS will forward all advisory opinions/responses by messenger directly to the OCIJ once each week. OCIJ will send these advisory opinions/responses by overnight mail to the appropriate Immigration Court.

E. Transmittal of DOS Advisory Opinions/Responses to Parties: Immigration Court personnel will process the standard transmittal letter with the DOS label (sticker) attached or the “generic” response in the same manner as an advisory opinion letter is processed in the Court. This will include updating the ANSIR system to show that a response has been received from the DOS, properly filing the standard transmittal letter with sticker response or the “generic” response in the ROP and forwarding copies to both parties in the case.

F. DOS “Country Report on Human Rights Practices”: Each Court Administrator should ensure that at least one copy of the current Department Country Reports on Human Rights and Practices and the Profiles of Asylum Claims and Country Conditions are available in each Court.

G. Problems With Requests for Advisory Opinions: Returned requests for advisory opinions: The DOS will return to OCIJ any Immigration Court request for an advisory opinion that lacks sufficient information for the DOS to render an advisory opinion or forward the responses to the proper Immigration Court. Some of the common problems are as follows:

1. No attachment to the Form I-589: The Form I-589 refers the reader to “additional information” contained in an attachment but the attachment was not included with the Form I-589 sent to DOS by the Immigration Court.
2. No asylum application: The standard transmittal letter was sent with an attachment of “additional information,” but the Form I-589 is not included.
3. Information on the standard transmittal letter is different from the attachment Form I-589: The A-number and/or the alien name on the standard transmittal letter is different from that on the Form I-589.
4. Form I-589 missing information: The Form I-589 is missing a page and/or the application has parts that are illegible (copy too light).
5. Hearing date is too close to date received at DOS. The standard transmittal letter indicates a Master Calendar hearing date instead of an Individual Calendar hearing date.
6. No standard transmittal letter: The Form I-589 is sent without a standard transmittal letter and DOS does not know where to send the response.
7. Standard transmittal letter has no return address: The letterhead with the address is missing.

OCIJ will send to the Court Administrators for correction and re- submittal to DOS all requests for advisory opinions that are returned to OCIJ by DOS. Court Administrators will ensure that Court personnel receiving and/or processing asylum applications are instructed to review them for completeness and legibility before they are sent to DOS. Also, Court Administrators will ensure that Court personnel processing and/or tracking the requests for advisory opinions know the proper procedures for submitting requests for advisory opinions and are instructed to check their work before mailing out the request.

X. RESIGNATION OF COURT PERSONNEL RESPONSIBLE FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS

Each Court Administrator should have at least one member of the Court’s personnel under their supervision designated to be responsible for the asylum application processing and tracking functions in that Court.

Asylum Opinion Tracking - Since DOS opinions are no longer required to be received, the asylum opinion tracking system will be limited solely to requests for case specific information. Court Administrators must monitor all requests for case specific information and contact the Central Operations Unit for assistance in obtaining a response if one is not received one week prior to the scheduled Individual Calendar hearing.

XI. CONCLUSION

Thus far, we have been very successful in implementing the new asylum reform regulations. Our ability to implement these reform measures, while at the same time ensuring that full and fair adjudications are made, has exceeded expectations. I know that each of you, as professional, dedicated employees will continue to do your best to meet the challenge and I thank you for your cooperation and support and I thank you for your cooperation and support. Please direct any questions you may have to your Assistant Chief Immigrant Judge, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Robert P. Owens, or Tony Padden, Chief, Central Operations Unit.

XII. SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS

1. 8 C.F.R., Part 208 Asylum Procedures
2. Rules of Procedures for Immigration Judge Proceedings:

• § 3.17 Scheduling of Cases
• § 3.20 Service and Size Documents
• § 3.21 Transition of Documents
• § 3.29 Filing Documents and Applications

3. Immigration Judge Bench book, Asylum and Withholding of Deportation.
4. Uniform Docketing System Manual, Processing Applications and Motions.
5. Court Administration ANSIR Handbook, Management Reports
6. ANSIR Field Users Manual, Chapter 2, Functions of ANSIR

[Editor’s Note: The attachments included in the above document are available as Reprint No: 32-0596.]