IMMIGRATION COURT POSTPONES ALL NON-CUSTODY HEARINGS UNTIL JUNE 26, 2020.

IMMIGRATION COURT POSTPONES ALL NON-CUSTODY HEARINGS UNTIL JUNE 26, 2020.  

it was just announced that Hearings in non-detained cases at other immigration courts are postponed through, and including, Friday, June 26, 2020.

Individuals with hearing dates before that date will receive notice of rescheduling of their hearings.

JUDGE SAYS U.S. CANNOT JAIL ASYLUM SEEKERS INDEFINITELY

JUDGE SAYS U.S. CANNOT JAIL ASYLUM SEEKERS INDEFINITELY.  Today, a federal judge in Seattle blocked the Trump administration from denying bond hearings to asylum seekers.

US District Judge Marsha Pechman ruled that people who are detained after seeking asylum protection are entitled to bond hearings and the chance to be released from custody. "It is the finding of this Court that it is unconstitutional to deny these class members a bond hearing while they await a final determination of their asylum request," Pechman wrote.

The Justice Department announced a policy in April that some asylum seekers cannot be released on bond by immigration judge—even if they have already proven a credible fear of persecution in their home countries.  The policy would have effectively blocked immigration lawyers and immigrant rights advocates from asking judges to release detained asylum seekers on payment of a bond.

The judge ordered the Justice Department to resume bond hearings for asylum seekers within two weeks. 

UNDERSTANDING THE CHANGES DONALD TRUMP JUST PROPOSED TO ASYLUM PROCEDURE

UNDERSTANDING THE CHANGES DONALD TRUMP JUST PROPOSED TO ASYLUM PROCEDURE.  

The Trump Administration just announced its plan for new regulations to further restrict the rights of asylum seekers arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border.  These newly announced plans would further limit the legal rights of asylum seekers, accelerate their deportation procedures making it difficult for them to defend against deportation, limit their right to work while their cases go forward and charge them a fee for applying for asylum. 

Here’s a brief summary of what those new proposed changes would do: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/understanding-changes-donald-trump-just-proposed-asylum-kerosky

(To read about what steps the Administration has taken previously to limit asylum and restrict legal immigration, and California’s efforts to fight these proposals, see: https://www.sonomacountygazette.com/sonoma-county-news/immigration-stories-by-christopher-kerosky-may-2019)

All of these changes would significantly change the asylum procedures set up 40 years ago by Congress when they passed the Refugee Act of 1980 setting up the asylum system.   

1. Limiting Options in Deportation Proceedings

Asylum seekers at the border already have to pass detailed interviews to convince a federal officer that they have a “credible fear” of persecution in their home country based on race, religion, political opinion, or social group.  Now. Trump proposes putting them into special deportation court proceedings, which would limit their options for rights to request other relief-- for example, denying them a right to stay based on marriage to a U.S. citizen.

2. Accelerating Deportation Proceedings

Trump also proposes that all asylum cases to be heard within a six-month period except in “exceptional circumstances.” The problem is that this would make it harder for asylum seekers to get a lawyer, obtain all the documents from their home country to prove their case and prepare for their deportation hearing properly. 

3. Charging a Fee to Apply for Asylum

Applying for protection has been free since ever since the Refugee Act of 1980 created the procedures almost 40 years ago. Under Trump’s new plan, asylum seekers would have to pay a fee to apply.  For people fleeing their country with little or nothing, this would cause more people to abandon their asylum claims.

4. Banning Work Authorization

Under the current rules, asylum applicants can obtain the right to work legally while they wait for a final decision on their application.  Under the new rules, most recent asylum seekers would be banned from getting work authorization. This would deny them the right to legally work while going through the asylum process. Clearly this would make it more difficult for them to survive in the U.S. while they try to prove they would be persecuted if they go back to their home country.

RESTRICTIONS ON ASYLUM BLOCKED.  A San Francisco judge issued a temporary restraining order last night, preventing the Trump Administration from implementing its new limitations on asylum.  Those regulations sought to deny access to asylum to many refugees at our Southern border.  Judge Michael Tigar of the U.S. District Court held that the law appears to violate the U.S. Refugee Act of 1980, as well as other provisions of law.

The United States Refugee Act (Public Law 96-212) was passed by Congress in 1980 to provide an established procedure for the admission to the United States of refugees of special humanitarian concern to the U.S.   That statute guarantees individuals the right to seek asylum whether at the U.S. border, a port of entry or even from the interior of the country. https://www.thoughtco.com/united-states-refugee-act-1980-1952018

Many of the refugees arriving as part of the caravans seek to apply for asylum at the U.S. border port of entry.   As reported in the Washington Post, some of those and others have gone to the wrong port of entry or crossed the border in desperation when they were turned away at a port of entry.  The U.S. Customs and Border Patrol has limited access to ports of entry and closed lanes of access routinely, greatly restricting the numbers of asylum seekers who may apply through the port of entry.   

The Trump Administration was attempting to limit access to asylum to only those persons applying at the port of entry.  Those who crossed the border at other points would be ineligible.   But the judge held that this limitation runs contrary to the express terms of the 1980 law.

 “If what Defendants intend to say is that the President by proclamation can override Congress’s clearly expressed legislative intent, simply because a statute conflicts with the President’s policy goals, the Court rejects that argument also,” the judge found

“This ban is illegal, will put people’s lives in danger, and raises the alarm about President Trump’s disregard for separation of powers, “ stated the ACLU lawyer who brought the case.   “There is no justifiable reason to flatly deny people the right to apply for asylum, and we cannot send them back to danger based on the manner of their entry. Congress has been clear on this point for decades.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/20/blow-trumps-immigration-agenda-federal-judge-blocks-asylum-ban-migrants-who-enter-illegally-mexico/?utm_term=.10c4a89558a2

SEEKING ASYLUM: Part Two: Applying for Asylum in Court.

By Christopher Kerosky

[This article was published in La Voz Bilingual Newspaper, http://www.lavoz.us.com/Read_La_Voz.html]

This is the second installment in a series about the asylum process for the many citizens of Mexico and Central America coming to our U.S. border to seek refuge from violence and persecution.  That first step, covered last month, is the interview conducted by an asylum officer at the border.  This article will describe the second step – the immigration court process. 

In order to stay in the United States (and eventually permanent residency), asylum seekers must prove to an Immigration Judge that they have a “well founded fear” that they will be persecuted if they were forced to return to their countries of origin. 

The applicant needs to demonstrate that he or she has a fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership to a particular social group. 

To obtain such protection from U.S. authorities, the asylum applicant should prepare an application known as I-589, and file it before an Immigration Judge.  The application should include declarations from the applicant and other witnesses and other detailed information as to why the applicant fears returning to his home country.  All of the information should be true; otherwise, the immigrant can be accused of presenting a “frivolous” application, which carries serious penalties.

The chances of obtaining asylum are greater if the application is filed within one year (365 days) from the applicant's entry into the United States. If this is not possible, then the applicant needs to demonstrate that the delay in the filing was due to extraordinary circumstances or that that the application was filed within a reasonable time after a change of circumstances that make the applicant eligible for asylum.

The asylum process could take approximately from six months to six years, depending on the judge's calendar and the backlog in the courts generally.  I have been representing clients in asylum proceedings since 1988 and over the years, I’ve handled more than 1000 asylum cases.  Over that time, the length of time asylum applicants wait for a hearing has steadily increased, recently averaging about 5 years.  However, the Trump Administration is attempting to increase the number of judges and expedite the process, especially for new applicants.

At the end of the immigration court case, a trial is held before a judge where the applicant is able to give testimony and present evidence favorable to his or her case. After the asylum applicant presents their case, the government's attorney is given the opportunity to convince the judge that the applicant is not eligible for asylum in the United States. Normally, the judge renders a decision at the end of such hearing.

If the judge denies the request for asylum, the applicant may appeal the decision with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and thereafter before the federal Court of Appeals.  During the time the appeals are pending, the applicant can remain in the U.S. legally.

If the judge decides to grant the individual asylum, he or she can remain in the United States indefinitely. One year after being granted asylum, the applicant and their qualified relatives can apply for Permanent Residency.

The asylum process is often long, complicated and stressful.  Despite some common misconceptions to the contrary, it is generally very difficult for asylum seekers to stay in this country.  However, if they present their case well, asylum seekers can often succeed in convincing a judge that they deserve refuge from the growing violence and persecution in Mexico and Central America.