Biden’s New Asylum Process: What You Need to Know

 

The Biden administration finalized its long-anticipated plan for overhauling the asylum system on March 24. The regulation, which is set to go into effect on an interim basis in 60 days, was first put forward for public comment in August 2021.

Asylum seekers arriving at the border and processed under the new regulation would potentially be able to have their entire case adjudicated within 6 months, as opposed to 3-4 years or more under the current system. The rule does not affect current cases and applies only to people who arrive after it goes into effect.

Although this new system could be a huge benefit to individuals with slam-dunk asylum cases, the rapid timelines envisioned in the regulation are likely to make the system much harder to navigate successfully for everyone else. 

More information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5405-Biden-New-Asylum-Process.html

Biden Will Admit Asylum Seekers Ordered Deported Under Trump’s Migrant Protection Protocols

By Melissa Cruz - www.immigrationimpact.com/

Asylum seekers who were ordered deported for missing their U.S. court hearings under the Trump administration’s so-called Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) —informally known as the “Remain in Mexico” program—will be allowed to restart their proceedings in the United States. Thousands of others whose cases were terminated because of procedural errors before they had a chance to seek asylum will also be allowed to restart the process.

This is the second phase of the Biden administration’s winddown of MPP, following its suspension and termination. Court hearings under the program had technically been paused since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020. But the Trump administration continued to place an additional 5,500 individuals into the program during its final year in office.

Who Was Subject to MPP?

It’s estimated U.S. officials sent roughly 70,000 people who came to the United States to ask for asylum back to Mexico over the course of two years. Many were from Central American countries such as Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.
 

Continúe leyendo en https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5172-Biden-Will-Admit-Asylum-Seekers-Ordered-Deported.html

Collecting DNA From Asylum Seekers at the Border Raises Privacy Concerns

 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is collecting DNA from asylum seekers at the border, recent media reports confirm. This is the latest expansion of DNA collection as part of a program initiated under the Trump administration that targets nearly all immigrants in government custody. A growing number of noncitizens are being subjected to this invasive collection of sensitive personal information with little knowledge or understanding of how their information will be used or stored by the federal government.

While the southern border remains largely closed to asylum seekers due to the Biden administration’s continuation of the Title 42 expulsions policy, some families and particularly vulnerable individuals are being allowed to enter to pursue their claims. And it is this population that is being subjected to DNA collection as they enter the United States.

The Biden administration has continued this policy despite privacy concerns and no clear justification.

More information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5161-Collecting-DNA-From-Asylum-Seekers-at-the-Border.html

Explaining Title 42 Expulsions at the Border

 

By: Jorge Loweree www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org - Photography: Arog Vila

The ability to seek asylum in the United States is a fundamental human right. But since March 2020, that right has largely been suspended.

U.S. government officials began “expelling” people who arrive at our southern border without any due process protections in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

They have carried out hundreds of thousands of expulsions under a little-known provision of U.S. health law called Title 42. Despite objections from scientists, the Trump administration implemented Title 42 to close the border to immigrants and asylum seekers.

Many asylum seekers continue to be expelled back to Mexico or their home countries under Title 42. The Biden administration has not put forward any plan to end the use of Title 42 at the border.

What is Title 42 and how did it go into place?

On March 20, 2020, the Department of Health and... more information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5103-Title-42-Expulsions-at-the-Border.html

The Plan to Process Asylum Seekers Subject to the Migrant Protection Protocols

 

By: Aaron Reichlin-Melnick - www.immigrationimpact.com

The Trump administration sent over 70,000 people who came to the U.S border seeking asylum back to Mexico to wait for court hearings. This so-called “Migrant Protection Protocols” (“MPP”) program placed people in serious danger and made it nearly impossible for anyone to win protection. Court hearings under MPP were indefinitely suspended in March 2020. This left thousands of people stuck in Mexico in limbo.

One of President Biden’s first actions instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) not to put any new people into the program. Three weeks later, his administration has announced a plan to allow the thousands of people still waiting in Mexico to enter the United States.

Who will be allowed to enter?

Under the Biden administration’s plan, the only people who will be allowed to reenter the United States are the roughly 25,000 individuals who have pending MPP cases.

Importantly, far fewer people are likely still waiting at the U.S.-Mexico border. While exact figures are not available, it is likely that many have already returned to their home countries or left for safer locations in Mexico.

Those who have been waiting the longest will be prioritized for readmission. Some people have been waiting

More information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5063-Process-asylum-seekers-with-migrant-protection-protocols.html

Trump Administration Begins Sending Asylum Seekers To Guatemala

In yet another major blow to America’s asylum system, on Wednesday the Trump administration reportedly began sending some asylum seekers from Honduras and El Salvador to Guatemala rather than permit them to seek protection in the United States.

Under the “Asylum Cooperative Agreement” deal signed with Guatemala in July, the Guatemalan government will process the asylum claims of people who arrive at the U.S. border without visas.

For the first time in American history, large numbers of refugees can now be returned to a third country without their consent.

This denies them any opportunity to seek protection in the United States. Instead, people will be required to apply for asylum in Guatemala, a country with one of the highest rates of poverty and malnutrition in the entire Western Hemisphere...

 

More information: https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4632-Sending-Asylum-Seekers-to-Guatemala.html 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

USCIS Proposes Increased Fees For All Immigration-Related Applications

By Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

In a new proposal officially put forward on Thursday, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) called for major fee hikes for immigration-related applications.

The cost for becoming a citizen would rise above $1,000 for the first time in history. In another first, USCIS proposed a new fee for asylum seekers, which would make the United States only the fourth country in the world to charge for humanitarian protection. Advocates decried the fee increases as an attack on legal immigration.

Under the proposed fees, an applicant for a green card through marriage who was applying from inside the United States would have to pay $2,750 in total. This is a $990 increase from the previous costs.

Applicants for citizenship would also pay over 60% more, with the total fees increasing from $725 to $1,170.

USCIS also plans to abolish fee waivers for a wide variety of applications, including for naturalization.

Currently, nearly 40% of applicants for citizenship receive a fee waiver, making this a significant change that could hit seniors and low-income immigrants the hardest. Under the agency’s plan, only fee waivers required by law would be allowed, with all other fee waivers abolished.

Some groups will be particularly impacted, including crime and trafficking victims seeking U visas or T visas. Individuals seeking these visas often need to file Form I-192, which allows them to officially reenter the United States on the new visa. The current fee is $930, for which a fee waiver is available.

Under the new proposal, the fee would increase to $1,415 and no fee waivers would be available. This could mean that victims of trafficking would be unable to afford the visa allowing them to stay in the United States, even though they were otherwise eligible to receive it.

USCIS also proposes to charge people $50 to ask for asylum, which the agency says will discourage “frivolous filings.” Currently, only Iran, Fiji, and Australia charge a fee for asylum seekers. The $50 fee would likely prove prohibitive to people seeking asylum—who are not legally allowed to work in the United States until after applying for asylum.

A $50 fee for applying for asylum would also have devastating effects on asylum seekers in detention, who earn at most $1 a day through Immigration and Custom Enforcement’s so-called “voluntary work program.”

Because fees set by USCIS apply automatically to applicants in immigration court, it would take a new regulation in the immigration court system to exempt detained asylum seekers. USCIS also proposes to hike fees an additional 6% across the board, and then send $200,000,000 yearly to ICE to use however that agency wishes. In essence, they would be forcing immigrants to pay extra in order to detain and deport other immigrants. However, the agency acknowledges that it may need congressional approval in order to do this.

Taken as a whole, these changes would make it more expensive to legally immigrate, imposing significant burdens on low-income immigrants in particular. The agency is soliciting comments on the new fees, with the comment period set to end on December 16, and opposition to the rule is likely to be strong.

Given the significant impact of theses changes, if the agency moves forward with its plan it’s likely to face opposition in court.

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4620-USCIS-Proposes-Increased-Fees.html

USCIS Wants To Make It Harder For Asylum Seekers To Get Work Permits

By Emily Creighton www.immigrationimpact.com

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recently proposed a rule that will further delay asylum seekers’ ability to receive work authorization.

Under current law, USCIS must grant or deny an initial asylum applicant’s employment authorization application within 30 days. Under the proposed rule, USCIS would have no time frame in which it must decide the initial application.

An asylum applicant already must wait at least six months before receiving employment authorization if their asylum application has not already been decided. The 30-day rule allows an asylum applicant to apply for work authorization at the 150-day mark and have a decision by day 180.

Even with the 30-day rule, USCIS historically took far longer than 30 days to decide applications for employment authorization until a class-action lawsuit challenged the agency’s failure to comply with the 30-day deadline. In 2018, the court ordered USCIS to follow the 30-day rule. The agency now would like to reverse these developments.

USCIS states that the rule change will help “ensure USCIS has sufficient time to receive, screen and process” applications for employment authorization, but the agency seems laser-focused on fraud, stating that it needs more time to “reduce opportunities for fraud and protect the security-related processes” as it decides applications.

The agency, however, provides no evidence of fraud or security-related concerns related to the employment authorization process. It only vaguely references additional vetting and background checks that may take longer than 30 days.

Instead of devoting resources to comply with the regulatory time frame, USCIS is relinquishing responsibility for helping asylum applicants become self-sufficient as quickly as possible.

The impact of the delay caused by eliminating the 30-day rule would be multi-fold.

According to USCIS, the lost compensation to asylum applicants could range from approximately $255 to $744.76 million annually. Annual employment tax losses to the government could range from $39.15 to $118.54 million.

If this proposed rule goes into effect, asylum seekers will have even less assurance that they will be able to support themselves or their family during what is often a long and difficult asylum application process.

USCIS is in fact working against the idea that asylum applicants—who often have limited community connections and few resources—should independently support themselves as quickly as possible. The agency invokes security and fraud concerns to distract from its failure to meet a basic bureaucratic mandate—to timely adjudicate applications for employment authorization.

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4480-USCIS-Harder-for-Asylum-Seekers-to-Get-Work-Permits.html

Chaos And Dysfunction At The Border: Remain In Mexico Program

By Aaron Reichlin-Melnick www.immigrationimpact.com

The first thing many people forcibly returned to Mexico tell you is that they’re afraid. Afraid of the cartels, afraid of Mexican immigration officials, and afraid of the months of uncertainty. This is what they’ve faced since the Trump administration sent them back to Mexico as part of the “Remain in Mexico” program—formally called the “Migrant Protection Protocols” (MPP).

Last week, I visited El Paso, Texas and Ciudad Juárez in Mexico to witness the effects of MPP firsthand. What I saw was chaos, dysfunction, and a policy that has removed what little remaining due process protections existed in immigration court.

Under MPP, individuals who cross the border or arrive at ports of entry are given a notice to appear in immigration court and then sent back to Mexico through a port of entry. Only Mexicans, unaccompanied children, and “vulnerable” individuals are excluded from the program. But that hasn’t stopped U.S. Customs and Border Protection from forcing back extremely pregnant women and vulnerable LGBT+ individuals.

In Ciudad Juárez, those subject to MPP are largely waiting in a network of private and publicly operated shelters. Although some lucky few have managed to obtain jobs and alternate housing, most people subject to MPP will spend the next several months confined to small, crowded spaces because they are too afraid to leave the shelter.

Kidnappings, assaults, rapes, and murders are routine in Ciudad Juárez, and most everyone I talked to had either been victimized themselves or knew someone who had been.

With over 42,000 people sent back across the border under MPP since the program began in January 2019, MPP has rapidly become the most effective tool in the Trump administration’s efforts to stop asylum seekers from coming to the United States. When individuals are sent back under MPP, they are required to wait in Mexico until the date of their next court hearing. This can often take months. I talked to some people in Ciudad Juárez who were sent back in June 2019 and still hadn’t had their first court hearings.

If people survive the wait, they must return to the port of entry on the day of their hearing. They are then taken by armed guards to the nearest immigration court for a hearing.

Those subject to MPP will likely have to go through this process three or four times at a minimum before their case is resolved. Those who are actually able to file for asylum—likely only a small number, given that barely one percent of people subject to MPP have found lawyers—will wait even longer. It will likely take six months to a year for a resolution of their case. Throughout this whole time, they remain vulnerable in Mexico.

When I visited the El Paso immigration court, I was told that more than 15,000 people had been returned to Mexico from the El Paso region alone.

This massive swell of new cases has overwhelmed the small El Paso Immigration Court, which in 2018 saw just 1,464 new cases filed. The court only has four judges, which means that each judge has been assigned thousands of MPP cases.

Despite the small size of the court, judges have been forced to take on hundreds of cases a day. On one of the days I visited the court, a single judge had been assigned 161 cases total on her morning and afternoon dockets. By the end of the day, she had been unable to complete all the cases and was forced to send some people back to Mexico without any movement on their cases.

The sheer size of the MPP docket has also crowded out observers from the El Paso Court. Despite waiting all day at the court, I was told I was not allowed to observe any of the supposedly public hearings. They needed every available seat in the courtroom for individuals subject to MPP. This has plunged the court in El Paso into a state of secrecy, making it virtually impossible to track what’s happening in hearings.

Despite the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe, there is no sign that the Trump administration is planning to reverse course on MPP. In the next few weeks, tents housing MPP “immigration courts” are set to open in Laredo and Brownsville, Texas, where tens of thousands of new cases will begin. And until a court or Congress steps in, the chaos, dysfunction, and harm caused by this program will continue.

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4468-Chaos-and-Dysfunction-Remain-in-Mexico-Program.html

Investigation Demanded As Medical Care For Detained Immigrant Children Worsens

By Katy Murdza www.immigrationimpact.com

Border Patrol agents placed a detained 9-year-old girl with a kidney disease at high risk of a urinary tract infection by not allowing her to shower or change her underwear for five days. Agents also denied a 3-year-old medical care after she vomited 10 times in an hour. Agents failed to schedule a doctor’s appointment for a 2-year-old with diarrhea so severe his desperate mother had to change his diaper every 15 minutes. Other Border Patrol agents told a family that no detained children will see a doctor unless they have a fever.

Now, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—Border Patrol’s parent agency—is being held accountable for these and other accounts of inadequate medical care for children held in its custody. The American Immigration Council and American Immigration Lawyers Association filed an administrative complaint on Wednesday with the FBI and two oversight branches of the Department of Homeland Security calling attention to these incidents.

The complaint includes excerpts from firsthand accounts of 200 asylum-seeking mothers about the inadequate care they received while held in CBP facilities. Each mother was later transferred with her child from CBP custody to the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, where their statements were collected.

Taken together, the testimonies show the consistent denial of medical care and unsafe conditions at CBP facilities:

• 67% of mothers stated that their child was not seen at all by a medical provider while in CBP custody, beyond a check for lice.
• 58% of the women who requested medical care for their child reported that they received no medical attention.
• 48% reported being detained with their child for longer than three days, in violation of CBP’s own guidelines.

Parents frequently report sleeping on cement floors for days with 24-hour light and noise. They often say their children’s health deteriorated in CBP custody without access to medical care, while they were forced to remain cold and wet with only thin mylar blankets.

CBP has repeatedly failed to follow even the very low standards that currently regulate its detention conditions.

The 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement requires that any facility holding children be “safe and sanitary,” but 22 years later, the government routinely violates its terms.

In 2017, Federal Judge Dolly Gee determined that the government was violating the agreement by failing to provide children adequate food, water, and basic hygiene items. In August 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision.

In July 2019, DHS’ Office of the Inspector General issued a management alert about “dangerous overcrowding” in the Rio Grande Valley Processing centers. The report revealed inadequate access to showers, changes of clothing, and hot meals. 31% of the children in the inspected facilities were there longer than 72 hours.

The consequence of being held in these substandard conditions can be devastating for children. At least seven immigrant children have died in government custody since last year.

According to Dr. Julie Linton, co-chair of the immigrant health special interest group at the American Academy of Pediatrics:

“Children are not like adults. They get sick more quickly and each hour of delay can be associated with serious complications, especially in cases of infectious diseases. Delays can lead to death.”

As the complaint demands, CBP must improve conditions and medical care in processing facilities. CBP agents who interact with children need to have child welfare experience. They should be trained to screen for medical issues and refer children to medical experts. Finally, all children should be released as quickly as possible, with an absolute maximum of 72 hours in CBP custody.

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4453-Detained-Immigrant-Children-Worsens.html

Rushing Immigration Court Cases Through ‘Rocket Dockets’ Deprives Families Of Due Process

In an attempt to rush through immigrant families’ court cases, the government began implementing “rocket dockets” in September 2018 for parents and children who had recently entered the United States together without authorization. The program is intended to discourage Central American families from coming to the United States by quickly deporting those already here. But by drastically shortening the timeline of the court process, the dockets prevent many asylum-seeking families from accessing a meaningful day in court. 

As of June 2019, over 56,000 cases were on these dockets in 10 cities around the country. 

Some immigrant families are only given a matter of weeks to find a lawyer and prepare their cases, and many attorneys report that expedited cases are scheduled too quickly to prepare well. This compressed timeline increases the chances that a family will have to navigate our complex immigration detention and removal system without an attorney. Those who go into court with no representation are much more likely to lose their cases .

Additionally, judges are under increasing pressure to close cases due to strict completion quotas . This adds more incentive to rush through cases at the expense of due process. 

While testifying before Congress in June, acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan claimed that the majority of families did not show up for court. But in fact, 86% of families released from detention attended their hearings from 2001 to 2016. 

Rocket dockets are unnecessary to ensure that people attend their immigration hearings. Immigrant families are generally eager to attend their hearings. These hearings are the only way for them to obtain permanent protections in the United States. The consequences of missing a hearing are also exceptionally high. Immigration judges are generally required to issue in absentiaremoval orders when someone fails to appear. 

Most families who miss court do so by accident. Often, the government has failed to notify them properly. In 2018, judges overturned 44 of 46 in absentia removal orders. The families in those cases had not received notice of their hearing or presented “extraordinary circumstances” for missing court. Thousands of hearing notices arrived after the hearing or to the incorrect address. Others included a date that doesn’t exist , a date on which the court was closed, or no date at all. 

There are meaningful and more effective alternatives available to these rocket dockets. 

To increase court appearances, the Trump administration could restart the Family Case Management Program (FCMP). This program provided individualized comprehensive help to families in five cities at a cost of only $38 per day for a family of two, compared to $592 for family detention . FCMP had a 99% success rate for compliance with court hearings and ICE appointments, but the government nevertheless ended it in June 2017. 

Other simple methods like text or email reminders about hearing dates have proven effective. 

The administration said it aims to discourage parents from traveling with children. To do this, they could reinstate the Central American Minors Program . This program allowed certain children with parents with legal status in the United States to apply as refugees. Hope of a legal path to the United States later may prevent parents from bringing them on the dangerous initial journey.

Instead of fast-tracking the court process, immigration courts should give these families the chance to prepare their cases. The opportunity to seek asylum is an American value—these programs would help restore that value. 

Source: immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4386-Rushing-Immigration-Court-Cases-Through.html

A Primer On Expedited Removal

Created in 1996, expedited removal is a process by which low-level immigration officers can quickly deport certain noncitizens who are undocumented or have committed fraud or misrepresentation. Since 2004, immigration officials have used expedited removal to deport individuals who arrive at our border, as well as individuals who entered without authorization if they are apprehended within two weeks of arrival and within 100 miles of the Canadian or Mexican border. 

On January 25, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order which directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to dramatically expand the use of “expedited removal” to its full statutory extent. n July 22, 2019, the Department of Homeland Security announced that it would carry out the full expansion. As of July 23, 2019, expedited removal may be applied to individuals who are undocumented, or who have committed fraud or misrepresentation, and who are encountered within the entire United States and who have not been physically present in the United States for two years prior to apprehension. 

One of the major problems with expedited removal is that the immigration officer making the decision virtually has unchecked authority. When an immigration official encounters someone they believe may be subject to expedited removal, the burden of proof is on the individual to prove otherwise. This means that an individual believed to be subject to expedited removal will have the burden of proving to an immigration official that they have been physically present in the United States for two or more years or that they were legally admitted or paroled into the United States. 

Individuals subject to expedited removal rarely see the inside of a courtroom because they are not afforded a regular immigration court hearing before a judge. In essence, the immigration officer serves both as prosecutor and judge. Further, given the speed at which the process takes place, there is rarely an opportunity to collect evidence or consult with an attorney, family member, or friend before the decision is made. 

Such a truncated process means there is a greater chance that persons are being erroneously deported from the United States, potentially to imminent harm or death. Moreover, individuals who otherwise might qualify for deportation relief if they could defend themselves in immigration court are unjustly deprived of any opportunity to do so. Yet expedited removal has been increasingly applied in recent years; 35 percent of all removals from the United States were conducted through expedited removal in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, the most recent government data available. A dramatic expansion, as directed by President Trump and implemented In July 2019, could result in thousands of additional deportations without due process. 


What the Law Says

“Expedited removal” refers to the legal authority given to even low-level immigration officers to order the deportation of some non-U.S. citizens without any of the due-process protections granted to most other people—such as the right to an attorney and to a hearing before a judge. The Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 created expedited removal, but the federal government subsequently expanded it significantly. 

As it now stands, immigration officers can summarily order the removal of nearly any foreign national who arrives at the border without proper documents; additionally, undocumented immigrants who have been in the United States 14 days or less since entering without inspection are subject to expedited removal if an immigration officer encounters them within 100 miles of the U.S. border with either Mexico or Canada. As a general rule, however, DHS applies expedited removal to only those Mexican and Canadian nationals with histories of criminal or immigration violations, as well as persons from other countries who are transiting through Mexico or Canada. There is no right to appeal an immigration officer’s decision to deport someone via expedited removal. Individuals in expedited removal are detained until removed. 

By law, expedited removal may not be applied to certain individuals. U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (LPRs, or “green card” holders) should not be subject to expedited removal. Nor should it be used against refugees, asylees, or asylum seekers (people who fear persecution in their home countries or indicate an intention to apply for asylum). 

Asylum seekers are instead referred to an asylum officer for an interview to determine if they have a “credible fear” of persecution. If an individual has been previously deported, an asylum officer determines if the person has a “reasonable fear” of persecution—a higher standard than “credible fear.” If the asylum officer fails to find that the person has a credible or reasonable fear of return, that person is ordered removed. Before deportation, the individual may challenge the asylum officer’s adverse finding by requesting a hearing before an immigration judge, who must review the case “to the maximum extent practicable within 24 hours, but in no case later than 7 days….” The judge’s review is limited solely to assessing whether the individual’s fear is credible or reasonable. 

Individuals found to have a credible or reasonable fear of persecution are detained pending further review of their asylum case. In limited circumstances, these individuals may be paroled—that is, released from detention—and permitted to remain in the United States while their asylum case is pending. 

Until January 2017, an exception to expedited removal had been made for “an alien who is a native or citizen of a country in the Western Hemisphere with whose government the United States does not have full diplomatic relations and who arrives by aircraft at a port of entry.” Cubans arriving by aircraft had been exempted from expedited removal under this provision, but in the closing days of the Obama administration, DHS published a regulation eliminating Cuban nationals from the exemption 


Use of Expedited Removal Is on the Rise

The use of expedited removal to deport people has risen substantially over the past two decades, peaking in FY 2013 when approximately 193,000 persons were deported from the United States through expedited removal, which represented 43 percent of the 438,000 removals from the United States that year. After 2013, the number of people deported from the United States through expedited removal fell, likely as a result of more asylum seekers who were found to have a credible fear of persecution. However, expedited removal still accounted for 35 percent of all deportations in FY2017. 
Fig. 1 Expedited Removals FY 2001-2017

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2010-2017; U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 2000 Statistical Yearbook, chp. 6. 


Concerns about Expedited Removal

Erroneous Deportations 

There are few checks on the authority of immigration officers to place non-citizens in expedited removal proceedings. In essence, the law permits the immigration officer to serve both as prosecutor (charged with enforcing the law) and judge (rendering a final decision on the case). Generally, the entire process consists of an interview with the inspecting officer, so there is little or no opportunity to consult with an attorney or to gather any evidence that might prevent deportation. For those who are traumatized from their journey or harm they fled, the short timelines can make it extremely difficult to clearly explain why they need protection in the United States. The abbreviated process increases the likelihood that a person who is not supposed to be subject to expedited removal—such as a U.S. citizen or LPR—will be erroneously removed. Moreover, individuals who otherwise would be eligible to make a claim for “relief from removal” (to argue they should be permitted to stay in the United States) may be unjustly deprived of any opportunity to pursue relief. For example, a witness or victim of a crime might be eligible for status but is prohibited from making such a claim in expedited removal proceedings. 

Inadequate Protection of Asylum Seekers 

In practice, not all persons expressing a fear of persecution if returned to their home countries are provided a credible or reasonable fear screening. Studies by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) noted that, in some cases, immigration officers pressured individuals expressing fear into withdrawing their application for admission—and thus their request for asylum—despite DHS policies forbidding the practice. In other cases, government officers failed to ask if the arriving individual feared return. In addition, the Commission found that the government did not have sufficient quality assurance mechanisms in place to ensure that asylum seekers were not improperly being turned back.

A Growing Backlog of Asylum Applications 

Individuals expressing fear of return who are diverted from expedited removal are referred to asylum officers for screening. These officers are often the same corps handling affirmative asylum applications (i.e., cases filed by individuals not in removal proceedings). Since these asylum seekers are detained pending completion of the credible or reasonable fear process, their cases are prioritized by the government. Asylum Office resources are therefore diverted to these interviews, contributing to the backlog of affirmative asylum cases. 

Further expansion of expedited removal will require significantly more asylum officers, or the backlog of affirmative asylum cases will continue to grow. This workload management crisis could be avoided entirely if DHS personnel placed all asylum seekers apprehended at the border in regular immigration court proceedings and paroled them pending their hearings. Providing the immigration court system with enough funds to sufficiently staff immigration judge teams would help ensure that asylum seekers get a prompt court hearing. 

Source: American Immigration Council 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4360-A-Primer-On-Expedited-Removal.html